Talk:Ashina tribe

Japanese clans

Should they be linked from the Japanese clans page?

No it's a Turkic dynasty as mentioned in the Article--Ugur Basak 11:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ashina is a Turkish clan. But the interesting point is, this prooves a connection of Hsiungnu to Turks. Tengriteg

Given there is little to no evidence of the Ashina clan at all, no historical record of how the clan passed down through history and precisely nil that there was anyone associated with the Xiongnu who was in any way whatsoever in vaguely associated with the Turks or the Ashina, I do not see how. In fact given that this entire article looks a-historic Turkish myth-making, why does it even exist? Lao Wai 14:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the New Book of Tang, the Ashina were related to the northern tribes of the Xiongnu. I also read a translation. If I can find some time I will give Chinese references. 193.140.91.129 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It says country Suo, NORTH of the Xiongnu, not the Northern Xiongnu. There is no connection, just Turkish Nationalism.

--173.70.154.203 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ashina Turks are extremely well documented by historians. Chinese and Greek especially. I agree that the Ashina were not part of Xiongnu. That theory assumes the Wusun were related to the Ashina. I don't personally need anymore proof that Xiongnu spoke a proto-Turkish language and that Turks embarked on nomadic empire-building adventures and that the Ashina were a bit like real life superheroes. If you live in a neo-fascist country that uses history to brainwash you, I'm sorry. I'd hate to show you some real Turkic nationalism.

ANYWAY in case anyone wonders the Ashinas clan of Japan might be shoemakers? Their name means "keeping an eye on legs and feet." Or "observer of reeds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:F00:AACF:B515:6FE0:58A6:AE6 (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed phrase

"These stories were at times pieced together to form a chronologically narrates of history. However the composite of such narrates are broad and the sequel could have been ended one way or the other, as most of the stories happens to be written in the same era without a date attached to it. "

These sentences make no sense to me. I would be happy to help put them in comprehensible English if someone could tell me what they are trying to say. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

These stories as stated, had been pieced together to form a narrates of their history in a chronologically manner, so what's wrong with that. Please try harder for the comprehensible. Or otherwise I will put them in myself. Eiorgiomugini 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"These stories were sometimes pieced together to form a chronologically narrative of early Ashina history. However the ultimate origin and chronological order of such narratives are uncertain, as most of the stories happens to be written in the same era without a date attached to it."

This parts is totally corrected, now I had no idea why did you removed the last part of it. If anythings, removing a sourced infomations from secondary matarial needed to be addressed here. Not simply undid my edits to prevert any revert wars. If it is not comprehensible English, probably you should added a tag over for a clean-up than removing my source. Eiorgiomugini 06:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your parts "These stories were sometimes pieced together to form a chronologically narrative of early Ashina history. However the ultimate origin and chronological order of such narratives are unknown." simply do not stated what my source trying to said, first of all, they're not unknown to scholars. Eiorgiomugini 06:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Xue

What is "Xue" in the "references" section? Could you be more specific? --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a citation or foot note. Read WP:REF for specific. Eiorgiomugini 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You should explain who is Xue - is it a book or a writer? If it is a book, when was it published? By whom? where? You can't persuade me that three enigmatic letters is a sufficient reference per se. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Its all written under the references section, please read also WP:HARV. To tell you the truth, I might simply choose to ignore or reply such comments. Eiorgiomugini 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I called trolling, obviously there's a reference section for book, location and publisher[3], but Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) simpy do not bother to look over it and is rather frustrating to be repeatedly questioned by the distorted user here over again and again. I think the improvement of for this article is a pointless waste of time because of people like you Ghirlandajo. Eiorgiomugini 06:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ashina

I'm not a native speaker of English, and my language skills are limited. Perhaps it's the reason why I can't comprehend the phrase "These stories were at times pieced together to form a chronologically narrates of history, however the probability was large and such sequel could have been one way or the other, as most of the stories happens to be written in the same era without a date attached to it". I tried to comment it out, but another editor started to revert war and added another sentence that I can't parse. I seek your opinion, mediation, and/or advice how to proceed in this case. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. This latest edit makes me conclude that the only way to proceed is to file WP:RFC concerning Eiorgiomugini's behaviour. The guy is terribly possessive in that he restores his every edit, no matter how you try to process it. This attitude effectively blocks the articles on the Gokturks and Xiongnu from any reasonable editing or improvement. I will probably pen a RfC tonight. Let other wikipedians judge what measures should be taken in this case. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's probably wise. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Which articles are we talking about? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem currently revolves around Ashina and Tarim mummies. But it is much wider than that. I think the guy reverted almost every edit I made to Gokturk-related articles today. Since I plan to write more stuff about that part of the world, I don't see how it may be practicable if this pattern of behaviour continues. His current revert-warring does nothing to encourage me (or anyone else) to keep editing those articles. P.S. Check Eiorgiomugini's block log. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts. You may also want to check the ongoing discussion on Dbachmann's talk page. It concerns the best way to spell the word "khagan". --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Briangotts"

Now User:Ghirlandajo, my behaviour is totally reasonable, if you felt frustrating, you could file a report whatever you wanted it, but overall at least I provided my source, unlike you that simply made an edit without a sources at the first point, so instead saying bads about me why don't you backoff on the insulting me and do something else, considering your block logare no better than anyone else here either. Eiorgiomugini 06:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not removed the dispute resolution of we're discussing, if anythings discussion should have been moved here for more appropriated approach for both of us especially, that is what matters for you. Also about Gokturk-related articles, I don't even think those could be accepted as "revert", but anyone like you are welcome and might like to give it a try for that issue as well. Let's all filed this petty issue to a report for a abuse reverter like you, I don't care, I don't even think that I was at wrong in the first places. Eiorgiomugini 07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think the Asina/Ashina could be related to the Asii/Asiani who are called "the lords of the Tochari," thus explaining their Indo-European name and possibly giving them Tocharian ancestry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.84.36 (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Nice discussion - missing here is scientific litarature - eg Peter Goldern and his latest article on the origins of the Turkut. As per Ashina and Gok/Kk names and name origin, Peter Golden and Rona-Tas, Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages, 1999 ascribe both words to Khotaknese Saka or Tocharian(Tarim basin) languages. Both words mean 'blue' - I will provide page number and cite later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.43.88 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Briangotts's complain

You would be well advised not to address your fellow editors with this type of profanity. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:Style and other guidelines. Refs and notes are properly two different sections. Please also review WP:OWN and accept that you do not have any property interest over Ashina, Gokturks, or any other articles. Your behavior is going to result in you being blocked (yet again). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eiorgiomugini"

I don't think you had the right to claim I had WP:OWN over Gokturk and Ashina, anyone could check out Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs)'s edits, and would knows that most of his revert/edition and trolling did not addressed under the edit summary, which meant he simply removed informations whatever he wants it, a terribly possessive in my opinion. I agreed with the style, however since Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) are the one who removed the References section[4], so I thought it might be better for you to rant on him, this had totally no concerns about my edits, I just happens to make a combined sections for compromise after his removal. About profanity, I don't recall I did mentioned your name on the edit summary nor the fellow editors here either, so that's just another self-soliloquizing from me.

And please refrain on yelling at others such as this one [5], reading the guideline of WP:OWN might help. You claimed you are willing to help in the comprehensible English for the article if I described on the talk, yet you made no reply ever since your first edit here [6], so I asked another guy to involve with the article somthings that you had failed to do. Eiorgiomugini 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Most powerful royal house and WP:OR

I think we needs a specific quote about what Togan said on the Ashina, such WP:POV claim needed to be addressed properly (including the reasoning) as well. Eiorgiomugini 02:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess what, I had removed one of the sources from the article. This quote below was clearly utter rubbish:

They were the most powerful royal house of the steppes before the rise of the Borjigin.[1]

Tagan was talking about the three main dynasties (Ashina, Chinggisid and Ottoman) in the history of Turks under page 16, nothing implies that he stated about the Ashina being the most powerful clan prior to Borjigin, there don't even have a word of Borjigin mentioned by him to begin with. WP:OR may be the grounds for deletion, and before doing so please think twice about what you are doing, at least thinks for the others instead for your sake of selfness. Eiorgiomugini 07:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop distorting the facts. I don't know whether it's your command of the language or bad will that makes you pretend to see so much difference between "powerful" and "main". You may replace one epithet with another, if you think they are not synonyms. In fact, I fail to understand how a dynasty may be described as "main" if it does not wield actual power. Your gratuitous accusations of "cheating" are not to be tolerated. We are not supposed to quote sources verbatim, as that would constitute breach of copyright. Your point that the Genghisids are not a branch of the Borjigin is very peculiar and needs to be sourced. Since it was me who wrote our articles about Genghisids and some Scythian royals too, I know what I'm talking about. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

However, in any case, a problem with the assertion is that it ignores the Yoglokars. --Nlu (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While the fact that you're the one who are making the WP:OR, so you're not in the position to talk back on me. If you had claimed me to be distorting the facts, you should had provided a proof to back up. This had got nothing to do with synonyms, the source doesn't even mentioned something between "powerful" and "main". Replacing one epithet to another? Like what, it makes me wonder did you even read the source you provided earlier. Your accusations is not making any sense for your information, and yes I considered you're cheating with your source with all these nonesense that actually started up by you. "I know what I'm talking about" talk to others, but not me, I don't care what articles you had wrote about, as you're unable to attribute your additions to a sources is considered to be a WP:OR. Eiorgiomugini 07:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that actually wonder me is why do you even bother to add this "most powerful" statement on the first places. Since everyone likes to be part of something, I hope you do aware that all claims like this needed to be sourced as it simply brought doubtness to readers. Eiorgiomugini 07:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I had updated the additions from the article as it had violated against the WP:OR:

Sergei Klyashtorny, a Soviet Turkologist who was responsible for the coverage of the Gokturks in the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, derives the name of the Ashina from the Iranian term for "deep blue" (this epithet was applied by the Persians to the Black Sea). This is consistent with the prevalent interpretation of the ethnonym "Göktürks" as "blue Turks", "heavenly Turks".

If Findley did said that, he would have mentioned under his sources, this article is currently in the dispute status, anymore nonsense without a source to back up would be removed. Eiorgiomugini 02:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ashina 2

Now, I had asked this guy named Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) earlier up for a mediation, but he refused even though our disputes carried on. Is there other way could be done about this? I need several opinions from you guys. Eiorgiomugini 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask for a third opinion? Or try a requests for comment on the article(s) in question? Moreschi ^Talk 14:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Its been requested by this user on me, and its full of false accusations and so on. Is there any other suggestions? I really needs to get this mediation to work on with this user, it would be a great thanks if you you guys could asked him agreed to the mediation. Eiorgiomugini 14:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I told you that I'm not interested in Ashina any more. I'm concerned about your systematic removal of references from Suyab now. You are an experienced editor and probably know the difference between this board and Village Pump. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Any helps would be great if any of you guys could moved this guy to come over for a mediation, or otherwise I believe our dispute would still carried on. To Ghirlandajo, leaving aside Suyab, I believe there's more disputes over others articles in future, if you continued with your huge cut-and-paste reverting. Eiorgiomugini 14:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant request comment on the article(s), not the people involved. An article RfC as oppposed to a user conduct one. Moreschi ^Talk 14:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Its been requested before earlier, and I don't think it work pretty well, the disputes continued after that in several articles. Eiorgiomugini 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

moved here from WP:AN/I, listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. dab (𒁳) 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A mistake about color identification

From the article: The Ashina probably comes from one of the Iranian languages of central Asia and means "blue", kok in Turkic, the color identified with the east, so that Gokturk, another name for the Turk empire, meant the "Turks of the East".

In old turkish the color identified with the East is Yellow. The name of the Yellow Sea comes from Turkish. Blue is the color that identifies holyness and royalty as it is the color of the SkyGod. So, Gokturk does not mean "Turks of the East", it means "Royal Turks". I have to check my books for reference.

That's true - the sun rises in the east. "Descendants of the sky" or "Celestial born" are good translations as well as "Turquoise Turks".

Ashinas also means "Recognized" in Iranian. In Japanese it means "leg and foot observer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:F00:AACF:B515:6FE0:58A6:AE6 (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

DNA Project

I hope I am not alone in seeing that the "Ashina Ancestry DNA" project is highly speculative. Aside from ignoring that the Ashina originally come from Xingjiang, it ignores genetic studies done on Xiongnu mummies and the Tarim Basin mummies, as well as ignores that the Ashina, much like the Saka, were not originally Xiongnu and adopted their culture post conquest/absorbtion. As a historian I find this project to be disconcerting in much the same way that the Davidic Dynasty project has no basis in historical fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.84.36 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As per my previous objections to this project I have removed the subject entirely. Not only was it poorly written, but to assume that the Ashina were haplogroup Q despite no evidence to support that in either Xiongnu or Tocharian/Tarim Basin grave sites is clearly the work of amateur historians merely intent on supporting a currently unsupportable view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.84.36 (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Turks didn't even mix with the Mongols or any other people like that, there was only a cultural exchange that occured. Xiongnu, on the other hand share the same genes as Xianbei and other people. Therefore,Turks couldn't be the descendents of Xiongnu since they do not share the same genes.

Also, Xiongnu split into two groups, North and South. Southern Xiongnu integrated with Chinese in Shaanxi province, and Northern migrated westward into Europe. No Turks split off from these two groups. The Gokturks who invaded China hundreds of years later were not the same, and only Turkish nationalists try to claim so (even saying Native Americans are Turks).

http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_16596591-population-origins-mongolia-genetic-structure-analysis-ancient-modern.htm http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_17905712-genetic-analyses-affinities-tuoba-xianbei-xiongnu-populations.htm --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ashina was an east Iranian clan

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

See the book below pages 142-143

Humanbyrace (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ashina was turkic clan, they were mongoloids, look at head of Kul Tegin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kul_Tigin, he was from Ashina family Leave this pan-iranist nationalizm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.65.154 (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Readability

I did my bit at trying to make this article readable because the topic is highly interesting and the author put so much effort in his job, so it was a pity the average reader would not be able to understand much.

I hope I did not misrepresent anything: if so please feel free to rectify and I will help with the language.Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011084245/http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw:80/ccw/02/cho5.htm to http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/cho5.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.oa18.com/read/classic/best/xyzz/007.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/085/212.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ashina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/cho5.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080210073416/http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/swa9.htm to http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/swa9.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Pseudeo-scientific source(s)

In the beginning passage this source [7] is used. It's obviously a dubious one, with having Wikipedia articles as references, amongst others. I don't think such references inserted by blocked sockpuppet accounts should stay in the article, so I'll delete them. Regards Akocsg (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Akocsg: Ask about the reliability of that source on WP:RSN. If other editors confirm it as unreliable, then we remove it. But the other parts of your edits are POV + misleading/false edit summaries. You remove everything you don't like or replace them with your own comments. Plus opening a section on the talk page does not meant that you can do such edits or your edits are legit. Some examples of your POV:

• Writing system: Changing "The Ashina writing system was taken from the Iranian Sogdian language. The letters used in the construction of the memorial stele describing the heroic exploits of the members of the ruling Kagan kind, were Sogdian. Thus the main inscription on the stele Bugutskoy set up in honour of one of the rulers of the First Turkic khanate, is a written Sogdian letter. A Sogdian inscription is found on a broadsword discovered in the burial of an ancient Turkic warrior at the monument at Jolene in the Altai Mountains." to According to some sources the Ashina writing system was taken from the Sogdian language. The letters used in the construction of the memorial stele describing the heroic exploits of the members of the ruling class and the Khagan were Old Turkic. A Sogdian inscription was found on a broadsword discovered in the burial of an ancient Turkic warrior at the monument at Jolene in the Altai Mountains
• Writing system 2: Changing "During the period of the Second Eastern Turk, ancient Turkic runic writing spread, which was also influenced by Sogdian. Runes are widespread among the nomadic Turkic peoples in the early Middle Ages." to "During the period of the second Eastern Turkic Khaganate, ancient Turkic runic writing spread. Runes were widespread among the nomadic Turkic peoples in the early Middle Ages."
• Funreal rite section: I just mention the first sentence and users can compare it with your changes: "Almost all of the elements of the funeral rites of the Ashina have analogues in the Indo-European rites"
• Another Orientalist, Yu. A. Zuev, also points out the origin of the Saka-Wusun Ashina. => Your edit: Another Orientalist, Yu. A. Zuev, also points out the origin of the Ashina.
• And you have removed any connection to Iranian/Iranian languages or replaced them with your own words.

So As I said, you use misleading and false edit summaries for POV-pushing. You did this on several other articles before. Next time I will report you to WP:ANI. Plus your blog log shows that this not the first time that you involve in edit warring. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: No they are not, the alphabet used in the stele of the Göktürk Khagans is Old Turkic. Please see these two articles: Orkhon inscriptions and Old Turkic alphabet. The passage called "writing" is about that inscription/writing system. They have nothing to do with Sogdians. So I don't understand why correcting that mistake is POV and false? You should also have noticed that this passage is without any sources (for a reason) and poorly written, very likely by one of the sockpuppets of User:GoguryeoHistorian, who was blocked indefinitely. It's the other way around actually, some user simply made Sogdian ("Iranian") out of Old Turkic. So why do you keep reinstating that? And I would really like to see a source/proof for that alleged "Sogdian inscription" on a sword of an "ancient Turkic warrior". Same goes for the funeral rite. I highly doubt that they would anything have to do with Slavic ones. Seems pretty much made up by me. I'm not pushing POV, but correcting POV which was done way earlier in this article. Regards Akocsg (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, just your personal opinion and uncensored changes which are equal to POV. And your claim about the sockpuppetry does not make any sense, because I watch this article and except the genetics section which was added by an IP for the first time on 2016[8] and it may requires verification, The other parts of this article is sourced and contributed by several editors (old edits). You can't change the referenced parts by your own interpretation. Provide your sources and when you have sources just add them to the article and do not delete/change the contents which you don't like them. Your talk page comments on here, edit summaries and your edits especially this one [9] show clear POV-pushing and disruptive edits. Since you don't want to provide your sources, then this is the end of this discussion for me. I have clarified every thing. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You haven't clarified anything, only keep accusing of POV pushing while I'm doing the opposite. And the fact that the Orkhon inscriptions of the Göktürks are Old Turkic, and not Sogdian is not POV or my personal opinion but a fact. Just read the article. The passage about the writing system doesn't contain any source. According to the source in that article, it was even the other way around. Here they are:

References

Does anyone have quotes from reliable sources supporting these sentences:

• "The Ashina writing system was the Old Turkic runic alphabet."
• "The Ashina writing system was taken from the Iranian Sogdian language."

I do not see quotes supporting anything. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

So far, this source:

• "The Earliest Turkic Poem"", no mention of Gokturk or Ashina.

According to A Grammar Of Old Turkic, by Marcel Erdal, page 4;

• "When, in the 6th century A.D., the first Turk kaghanate was formed in present-day Mongolia, its rulers appear to have used Sogidan, an Iranian language, for writing.

also, on page 4;

• "The earliest readable, understandable and datable Turkic texts are the official inscriptions of the second Turk kaghanate, the Orkhon inscriptions; the first of which appear to have been from slightly before 720 A.D..."

Therefore, we can not attribute the Orkhon inscriptions(c.720) to the first Turk kaghanate(ended c.630), which is what the statement about the Ashina is referring to. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, according to Monumental Polovtsian Statues in Eastern Europe, by Aneta Golebiowska-Tobiasz, page 38;

• "The blooming period of Asian stone sculpture has been link to the influences of Sogdian art at the time of the Western Turkic Khaganate." --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Another one from Encyclopaedia Iranica;

• "TURKO-SOGDIAN COINAGE, issues of the khaqans (ḵāqāns) of the Western Turkic khanate in Central Asia between the 6th and 8th centuries CE, so called because the Turkic rulers issued them with Sogdian inscriptions (Smirnova, 1952)." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

And, according to The Altaic World through Byzantine eyes: Some remarks on the Historical Circumstances of Zemarchus' Journey to the Turks (AD 569-570), Mihály Dobrovits, "Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae", Vol. 64, No. 4 (December 2011), page 382;

• "Sogdian played an important role in the life of the Turkic Empire. It was the language of the Bugut inscription (ca. 571-582), the first historical inscription of the Turks..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Akocsg and Kansas Bear: I removed that section (Sogdian writing system).[10] Seems it's a WP:OR. An nothing about Ashina and their writing system on Old Turkic alphabet, Orkhon inscriptions. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ashina clan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This whole page needs serious rewriting by an accredited expert on the Early Turks

I know a ton about the Huns, but not enough about the early Turks to rewrite this page. But this entire thing has been corrupted by pseudo-history and nationalism. I recognize most of the "scholars" cited on here from sites like "TurkicWorld" and "HunnoBulgars.blogspot" like M. Zuev, etc. and their work is not accepted by mainstream, Western scholarship at all. MMFA (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Beshogur's opinions

Beshogur referenced this page of this book for his ascribing "Old Turkic" to the language of the Ashina tribe:

https://books.google.com/books?id=m85xLUjCwQUC&pg=PA64

In fact, page 64 of this book does not contain any reference to the Ashina tribe, and suggests the official language of the very diverse East Turkic Empire/Second Turkic Khaganate was Orkhon. Nowhere does it suggest that this was ethnic language of the Ashina tribe. Hunan201p (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not my opinion. Can not believe you are removing sourced content and threatening me with reporting to admins. Is Orkhon inscriptions enough about the mother tongue of Ashina? I am scared that you are going to say that Bilge Qaghan was not of Ashina origin. Also why did you remove the religion section if it is only about the language? By the way feel free to do so. You are violating the rules. Also if you are not convinced yet, Orkhon inscriptions are written by Yollıg Khagan itself. and "Yollugh Tigin had also written on the oriental face of the stele" and "The author of the Bilge Kagan and Kül Tigin monuments, Yollug Tigin, describes himself as .." Beshogur (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, the source does not say anything about the Ashina tribe. This article is about Ashina. The Orkhon inscriptions are written in an Indo-European script, casting serious doubt that Ashina were ethnically Turkic (on top of the fact that a wealth of scholars bekieve they are Indo Iranian Sakas or Wusun). The reference you used in the religious section is very vague and does not explicitly state when and how Tengriism became the religion of the Ashina triben or the Turks for that matter, and the rest of the arricle, as well as your own reference, implies Tengeiism is a syncretic religion that may have been *altered* by Ashina. There is too much unknown here to be rubber stamping the ethnic identity of Ashina, particularly with references like a page from a book thwt doesn't even contin the word "Ashina".Hunan201p (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Beshogur's latest attempt to the make the Ashina tribe "Old Turkic" speakers used this reference

https://books.google.com/books?id=Z_B5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA26

It tells us nothing we didn't already know; the Ashina tribe spoke some form of "Turkic", which was the lingua franca of the Gokturk empire. It says nothing about "Old Turkic" and nothing about the ethnic language of the Ashina. A reference needs to explicitly state that the ethnic language of Ashina tribe was Turkic, to be on this page. References about Old Turkic or Ruanruan are appropriate on the Turkic Khaganate pages, under a "common languages" banner like we have on the Huns page. This source is also very liberal with the vague and seemingly out-of-place ethnonyms, like "Turkish", and does more of a cursiry examinatuon of various Turkic empires than a detailed analysis of the Ashina. Hunan201p (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

the Ashina tribe spoke some form of "Turkic", which was the lingua franca of the Gokturk empire. It says nothing about "Old Turkic"

This must be a joke right? The whole Old Turkic story is based on Orkhon inscriptions. Beshogur (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Kansas Bear is working on this article; a new and well-written revision. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, this is a combative talk page section title. Secondly, while I've clashed with Beshogur in the past, in this case, they are right. The source in question says this Among these nomadic groups, the 'founding fathers' of the first khaganate of the Turks occupied a prominent position. This Turkic-speaking-elite, who formed the Ashina clan, initially acknowledged the superiority of the rulers of the Ruran empire of the northern borderlands of China, and settled with their people in the Altai mountain regions assigned to them by the Ruran. It was there that the clan federation of the Turkic-speaking groups, which assumed the name 'Turks' (Türk), first emerged.... Really, this is pretty explicit. Also, Orkhon inscriptions in Indo-European? Never heard this one, sounds quite fringe. Especially as the translation of them from Old Turkic by Danish scholars has been around for quite awhile and is publically available if you have JSTOR [11]. Whatever the "ethnic" language of the Ashina was originally, by the time they were important to history, they spoke Turkic, and we have no idea what was before then. --Calthinus (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus: the very article you link to (Orkhon inscriptions) states explicitly that the Orkhon inscriptions are written in a Sogdian (Indo-Iranian/Indo European) script. The Old Turkic alphabet is a child system of the Sogdian alphabet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogdian_alphabet

If you aren't aware of these basic facts; please keep your opinions to yourself.Hunan201p (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, script. Because script equals a phylogenetic relationship in historical linguistics? Good luck "proving" that Indonesian descends from Latin, and all languages using Latin or Greek descend from Semitic (namely, Phoenician with its alphabet). Erm, no, that is not how it works. --Calthinus (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately for Wikipedia, Calthinus doesn't get to determine how things 'work' around here. The multiple references on this page, that page and several others make very clear that these people had Iranian heritage.Hunan201p (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You are faking the sources. None of the sources mention an Iranian origin, I've checked all of them except of two. It only mentions about the etymology of Ashina. Beshogur (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I am glad, I can agree with you. Beshogur (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wario-Man:, with all respect, you said that Ashina were of Saka-Wusun origin, however I checked the source. Klyashtorni says the word Ashina is Iranian origin, says nothing about the ethnicity. "The theme of the ‘wolf’ in two of the three Türk legends is shared with the Wu-sun, who preceded the Türk Empire by many centuries. Also shared with the Wu-sun is the theme of the mutilated child abandoned in the wilderness by the enemy. According to the Shih-chi, the Wu-sun ruler K’un-mo was cast out to die when still a baby, but was nourished by birds that brought him meat and by a wolf that suckled him. The story is also related in the Han shu and its close relationship with one of the Türk origin myths is obvious. There is, however, the significant difference that, whereas in the Wu-sun myth the wolf saves the ancestor of the tribe, it is not – as in the case of the Türks – the ancestor of the people. (The connections with Mongol myths, though undeniable, should not concern us here." and "Türk system of beliefs linking at least some sections of the Türk ruling class to the Sogdians and, beyond them, to the Wu-sun who – for all we know – may have been Iranians." For all misunderstanding, he says Wusun's are Iranian, not Ashina. Read it good. "Sergei Kliashtornyi has revisisted this theme and, building on the earlier work, suggests that A-shih-na is the transcription of Khotanese-Saka "Asseina/assena "blue" (cf. Soghian *ahsane) or perhaps Tocharian Asna "blue", The Khotanese-Saka form seems closest to "Ashina." This nicely dovetails with the usage "Kök Türk," Blue Türks, found in the Kül Tegin / Bilge Qaghan inscription." Beshogur (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, I found this in Peter B. Golden's book citing Gumilyev, a well known historian: "Whatever language the Ashina may have spoken originally, they and those they ruled would all speak Turkic, in a variety of dialects, and create, in a broadly defined sense, a common culture. I do not know if he will be still in denial. @Kansas Bear:, comments? Beshogur (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If Golden says that, sure. I would not rely on Lev Gumilyov, personally. --Calthinus (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Article rewritten

I have rewritten the article which had many errors including puttin two times origin section, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=prev&oldid=934644256 here is the rewritten version. Some sources were faked and used wrong. All those writers mention it about its etymological origin. I have removed some writers, because they were citing Klyashtorni as well. "This idea is seconded by the Hungarian researcher András Róna-Tas, who finds it plausible "that we are dealing with a royal family and clan of Saka origin" with "Rona-Tas 208" as source was not verifiable. Did try, but did find nothing. Also added language and religion, with more source. The language and religion should not be a dispute anymore. Took this from Peter B. Golden's book "Whatever language the Ashina may have spoken originally, they and those they ruled would all speak Turkic, in a variety of dialects, and create, in a broadly defined sense, a common culture." About the Wusun thing. It is completely fake that he said Ashina might descend from Wusun. Plus he says that Wusun's were Iranians, not Indo Aryan as it was mentioned here. Here is the full text: "The theme of the ‘wolf’ in two of the three Türk legends is shared with the Wu-sun, who preceded the Türk Empire by many centuries. Also shared with the Wu-sun is the theme of the mutilated child abandoned in the wilderness by the enemy. According to the Shih-chi, the Wu-sun ruler K’un-mo was cast out to die when still a baby, but was nourished by birds that brought him meat and by a wolf that suckled him. The story is also related in the Han shu and its close relationship with one of the Türk origin myths is obvious. There is, however, the significant difference that, whereas in the Wu-sun myth the wolf saves the ancestor of the tribe, it is not – as in the case of the Türks – the ancestor of the people. (The connections with Mongol myths, though undeniable, should not concern us here." and "Türk system of beliefs linking at least some sections of the Türk ruling class to the Sogdians and, beyond them, to the Wu-sun who – for all we know – may have been Iranians." Also there was a Russian source, where you can not verify anything, too much text and it is unsearchable even with translate. @Calthinus:, @Wario-Man:, @Kansas Bear:, thoughts?

Regarding the texts:

• Several historians have pointed out that the origin of the Ashina is from the Indo-Aryan Wusun.[42]

This is not true, this is what Klyashtorni says, from the used source: "The theme of the ‘wolf’ in two of the three Türk legends is shared with the Wu-sun, who preceded the Türk Empire by many centuries. Also shared with the Wu-sun is the theme of the mutilated child abandoned in the wilderness by the enemy. According to the Shih-chi, the Wu-sun ruler K’un-mo was cast out to die when still a baby, but was nourished by birds that brought him meat and by a wolf that suckled him. The story is also related in the Han shu and its close relationship with one of the Türk origin myths is obvious. There is, however, the significant difference that, whereas in the Wu-sun myth the wolf saves the ancestor of the tribe, it is not – as in the case of the Türks – the ancestor of the people. (The connections with Mongol myths, though undeniable, should not concern us here." and "Türk system of beliefs linking at least some sections of the Türk ruling class to the Sogdians and, beyond them, to the Wu-sun who – for all we know – may have been Iranians."

and

• "Researchers such as Peter B. Golden,[13] H. W. Haussig,[14] S. G. Klyashtorny,[15][16] A. N. Bernstamm,[17] Carter V. Findley,[18] D.G. Savinov,[19] S. P. Guschin,[20] Rona-Tas[21] and R. N. Frye[22] have pointed out that the origin of the Ashina is from the Indo-Iranian Saka or Wusun.[23]"

Let us check one by one:

• source [13] here "He suggests that it may derive from the Tocharian title arsilanci, stemming, perhaps, from a marital tie of the Türk with the Tocharians of Qocho (Beckwith 1987, 206-208). Shervashidze reads A-shih-na as *Ahsen(a)-sad (< Soghdian: Axsina "blue" + sad, an Iranian title) (1989, 79-80). This Iranian linguistic connection was first put forward by Haussig and Bailey. More recently, Sergei Kliashtornyi has revisisted this theme and, building on the earlier work, suggests that A-shih-na is the transcription of Khotanese-Saka "Asseina/assena "blue" (cf. Soghian *ahsane) or perhaps Tocharian Asna "blue", The Khotanese-Saka form seems closest to "Ashina." This nicely dovetails with the usage "Kök Türk," Blue Türks, found in the Kül Tegin / Bilge Qaghan inscription.

• source [15] and [19] is not verifiable

• source [18] Carter V. Findley says: The linguistically non-Turkic name, A-shih-na, probably comesfrom one of the Iranian languages of Central Asia and means “blue,” kök in Turkic, the color identified with the East, so that Kök Türk, another namefor the Türk Empire, meant the “Turks of the East.”"

• source [20]: “As a result, the incomprehensible“ Sovereign House of Co ”, indicated as the ancestors of the house of Ashin, turns into the“ Saki Land ”somewhere north of the Hun ... those lands where the Pazyryk mounds and the Ukok plateau "[34]," concludes SP Gushchin. taken from here, a pseudo-source. can't find any info who "S P Gushchin" is.

• source [24] and [42] here it says: "He suggests that it may derive from the Tocharian title arsilanci, stemming, perhaps, from a marital tie of the Türk with the Tocharians of Qocho (Beckwith 1987, 206-208). Shervashidze reads A-shih-na as *Ahsen(a)-sad (< Soghdian: Axsina "blue" + sad, an Iranian title) (1989, 79-80). This Iranian linguistic connection was first put forward by Haussig and Bailey. More recently, Sergei Kliashtornyi has revisisted this theme and, building on the earlier work, suggests that A-shih-na is the transcription of Khotanese-Saka "Asseina/assena "blue" (cf. Soghian *ahsane) or perhaps Tocharian Asna "blue", The Khotanese-Saka form seems closest to "Ashina." This nicely dovetails with the usage "Kök Türk," Blue Türks, found in the Kül Tegin / Bilge Qaghan inscription.

• source [22], R. N. Frye, here does not even mention Ashina!

I can not verify Rona Tas's content.

Conclusion, they are talking about the etymological origin as I have mentioned earlier.

It should be:

• Researchers including Peter Benjamin Golden, H. W. Haussig, S. G. Klyashtorny, Carter V. Findley, Rona-Tas have pointed out that etymological origin of Ashina might derive from Saka or Sogdian languages. Victor H. Mair says that Ashina, were migrants to southern Siberia, northern Mongolia, and are considerable number of Tocharian and Iranian loan words in Old Turkic, although a good number of these may have been acquire, especially Sogdian terms, when Sogdians were subject to the Turkic Khaganate.

• According to Klyashtorny, the origin myth of Ashina shared similarities with the Wusun, although there is a significant difference that, whereas in the Wusun myth the wolf saves the ancestor of the tribe, it is not as in the case of the Turks. He also adds that Turk system of beliefs linking at least some sections of the Turk ruling class to the Sogdians and, beyond them, to the Wusun.

Beshogur (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

References

The orginal edit which was made back then im 2014, as you can see the name section was changed into origin. And the "arguments" section was later added on. The edit seem suspicious and translated from Russian wikipedia where the translated text says:

"Other researchers, such as H. V. Haussig [4] , A. N. Bernshtam [5] , Yu. A. Zuev [6] , D. G. Savinov [7] , S. P. Gushchin [8] , Rhone-Tash [9] , RN Frye [10] , Findlay [11] , VU Mahpirov [12] , we hypothesized about Sako - Usun (Sogdian) Ashin origin: in their view, the roots of the ethnonym "Ashin »Should be sought in Sako - Usun clan anthroponymy."

As you can see it is about the ethnonym and badly written orginal research. Can't believe this stayed here for five years. Beshogur (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of factual dispute tags at Ashina tribe

WP:DT states clearly:

Many editors consider use of any banner template in an article a serious measure of last resort, and would prefer other measures be exhausted before such detractions from the project be used. If one must be used, please make a thorough note listing deficiencies or items being disputed in bulleted or numbered paragraph format under a clear notice section heading on the article's talk page.

Given Beshogur's multiple subtractions and revisions from this article, dating back to late November, his opportunity to use the dispute tags expired long ago. A proper procedure would have been to add the dispute tag in November, before he started censoring longstanding references and adding "citation needed" tags where they weren't necessary. After having attempted to independently re-write the article numerous times in the course of an hour; and his stated insistence at the Noticeboard that he "would not wait", for other editors to review his deleterious contributions, there is no sensible purpose in allowing him to place factual dispute tags on articles, having already violated proper procedural conduct in numerous ways for a long time. His use of the tags here are a last-ditch effort to cast doubt on reliable and reviewed citations on this article and Gokturks, which is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hunan201p (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that using a DT tag is permissible at this time, as Beshogur has identified points of disagreement in the section above. While you disagree with Beshogur's points, there hasn't really been sufficient discussion to suggest that there is a consensus against Beshogur's suggestions (similarly, there is no clear consensus for Beshogur's proposed changes either). It seems unlikely to me that either you, Hunan201p, or Beshogur are likely to be convinced by the other (and arguing back and forth will just generate a wall of text that no uninvolved editor is going to want to sort through). I would thus suggest that both of you take a step back from the article and its discussion until other editors have weighed in as well (and judging from discussion in previous sections, it's not unreasonable to expect that other editors working on this article will chime in soon). If no one has responded for two weeks, I would suggest resolving the issue through an RfC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The use of dispute tags is outlined in WP:DT. It states that they "should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form on the article's talk page, in a section which includes the name of the template that was applied". Beshogur failed to do that in November of 2019 when he decided to start removing statements from the article and adding "CN" tags where they weren't needed. Beshogur has not "identified points of disagreeement", he has actively sought to suppress longstanding references reflecting a large academic consensus from the article. After all the attempts at suppression were exhausted here, and nearly every procedural policy violated time and time again, allowing a factual dispute is basically allowing Beshogur to slap an "IDONTLIKEIT" banner on the face of the article. This is clearly not a case that warrants a dispute tag, from a Turkic nationalist user who has repeatedly tried to unilaterally alter this article and who has a documented record of bombarding the Administrator's noticeboard with meritless complaints when all of his efforts to indepedently revise this article fail. See the page history dating back to November of 2019 in addition to the talk page. Hunan201p (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, have you read the sources? I've put them above. None of them says origin but etymological origin, especially that Wusun origin thing. Say, where am I wrong. Also thanks for not removed the text I've put about Wusun here Ashina_tribe#Legends. (this is the edit it should be, not "or possibly from the Indo-Aryan Wusun.[18]"). And if my edits were "POV pushing" why didn't you removed the infobox, you were trying to remove 4 times? So seems like I was right. Beshogur (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no statute of limitations on this. Yes, it would have been preferable had this all been resolved on a talk page in November. The fact that it wasn't does not preclude Beshogur's right to object. Moreover, Beshogur has stated a list of suggestions and disagreements in the section above; objecting to the tag on the basis that they didn't perfectly follow the instructions on the template page to a T is wikilawyering. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You're making your own interpretation of the WP:DT guidelines, which are not in line with what the page says: "[dispute tags] should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form on the article's talk page, in a section which includes the name of the template that was applied". You can't go back and add dispute tags based off your previous entries at the talk page; made hastily in explanation of deleterious edits that were reversed by Wario-Man and myself, after we urged him multiple times to back off the article and to *discuss* (and not merely to leave little receipts for) his ideas at the talk page. The way it works is for someone with no conflict of interest to leave a detailed explanation for their views and then to add the dispute tag. What Beshogur has done is to delete information from article, to make combative revisions and frivolous noticeboard complaints, to fail to allow discussion at the talk page from numerous editors, and in his own words, to refuse to wait for reviewers to look over his contributions/deletions. He has followed the procedure in reverse order, has made it clear he is a biased lone wolf editor with no regard for Wikipedia's standards, and is also a Turkic nationalist. He has no right to put that tag up there after this rampageous episode of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hunan201p (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Template instructions are suggestions, not immutable laws. The specific sentence you're citing literally begins with the word "preferably": preferably presented in a numbered list form on the article's talk page, in a section which includes the name of the template that was applied. The article currently reflects the status quo from before Beshogur's edits, and they have started a discussion on the talk page, so there's no reason to continue haranguing them for not following BRD at the outset. Finally, please focus on the content and not the editor. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia project articles reflect a consensus that should be followed under normal circumstances. The damage that has done to this page has been paranormal. Note how you have chosen to ignore the context of the WP:DT by pointing out the use of specific *words*, while ignoring the context of entire *phrases* that I emphasized, as well as the broader context of the statement. WP:DT clearly states that dispute tags are a serious matter that should be applied responsibly under extraorinary circumstances. That means that a controversial user like Behshogur, the sole opposition to the page as it stood corrected by numerous editors, with a conflict of interest and a demonstrated willingness to to insert and redact perfectly well-referenced information from this article (to fit his POV), is well outside the bounds of what would be considered an appropriate user of this function in this article.

And to be clear, this article does not reflect the status quo as it was before Beshogur started revolutionizing it in November. Numerous perfectly sourced references remain censored and a lot of questionable material he has added since then. I have only managed to salvage some parts of what he has erased. Hunan201p (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

References

"However, many sources also describe the Ashina as having Turkic origins.[19]"

@Leppaberry-123:

This statement is false. There is nothing in Petr Charvat's 2010 reference that makes the claim that the Ashina have Turkic origins, much less that "many sources" suggest that they have Turkic origins. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Statements by Peter Golden and Oliver Nicholson, others

• "The early Turks are sometimes called Kök ('Blue, Heavenly') Türks (Orkhon inscriptions, 263-4), a calque of *Khotanese Saka āsseina 'blue', i.e. the Ashina clan. Their origin is unclear; Chinese annals trace their lineage back to the Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu). Certain aspects of Ashina-led Türk culture (eastward orientation, numeral system, some personal names) are not typically Turkic, suggesting a mixed ethnic origin."

• "Little is really known about the origins of the Türks. Their ruling clan bore the name Ashina probably an Eastern Iranian or Tokharian word" [...] "Bumïn, whose name, like those of many early Türk rulers is not Turkic," [...] "Sir derives from the sanskrit Sri (firtunate, auspicious), and Yabghu may be Iranian. These titles show the wide range of non-Turkic influences in the shaping of Türk imperial culture."

• High quality secondary source stating that the original Turks were not a homogeneic entity: https://brill.com/view/journals/inas/19/2/article-p197_197.xml

Hunan201p (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Their origin is unclear; Chinese annals trace their lineage back to the Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu), not "Saka" "Wusun", etymological origin. Ashina probably an Eastern Iranian or Tokharian word, again nothing about its origin, but etymological. "High quality secondary source stating that the original Turks were not a homogeneic entity" so what, this is about Ashina. You disprove yourself. Thanks. No problem, anyway I am going to take this dispute noticeboard soon. Beshogur (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Tiele origin of Ashina

I don't possess any copy of Duan (1988), Xue (1992), Lung (2011) and I admit that my Chinese is very rusty. Yet I don't think Richard L. Davis (with all due respect to him) has accurately translated Ouyang Xiu. Ouyang Xiu apparently classified Tiele, Yantuo, and Ashina as three greatest Western Turkic tribes, not that Yantuo & Ashina were Tiele. This is the Chinese original:

當是時，西突厥有鐵勒，延陀、阿史那之類為最大；其別部有同羅、僕骨、拔野古等以十數，蓋其小者也；又有處月、處密諸部，又其小者也。朱邪者，處月別部之號耳

My translation

During that time, Western Turks had Tiele, Yantuo, Ashina group/kind as the greatest; [as for] their other/splinter tribes [Western Turks] had Tongluo, Bugu, Bayegu, etc. numbering about ten, overall they were all small. [Western Turks] also had all those Chuyue, Chumi tribes, they were also all small. These Zhuxie, another splinter tribe of Chuyue.

@Erminwin: It's been nearly two years since you posted it, but yes, thank you for noticing this. The historical source does not say that the Ashina were of Tiele origin.

Predictably, the 'verifiable' secondary sources propose a completely different version of reality than the current Wikipedia entry. 

Quoting Lee & Kuang (2017), who reiterate:

The nomadic people who spread the Turkic language and the name "Türk" beyond the Mongolian steppes were the Kök Türks (Tujue 突厥 in Chinese), led by the Ashina clan. Importantly, Chinese histories do not describe them as descending from the Dingling or as belonging to the Tiele confederation.10 The Zhoushu (c. 630s ad), for instance, describes them as ‘a separate tribe of the Xiongnu (匈奴之別種)’ (Zhoushu 50.907) or ascribes their origin to the Suo state (suo guo 索國) located to the north of the Xiongnu (Zhoushu 50.908).

So it looks like the Tiele association may be a mistaken assumption. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2022 (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:

• Kul Tigin stamp 1982.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ashina clan (Japan) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Mongolian origin

One theory confirms the Mongolian ešin (aš) word for wife in Mongolian. And the final ending -as is a plural suffix. —22:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)~

Correcting some mistakes

Muqan Qaghan, there is no a single source that says his eyes are blue. In fact the word "瑠璃" mean glaze and "琉璃" glass. Lapis Luzali in Chinese is "青金石"

Zhoushu, vol. 50 "狀貌多奇異，面廣尺餘，其色甚赤，眼若瑠璃。" Beishi vol. 99 "狀貌奇異，面廣尺餘，其色赤甚，眼若琉璃。"

Correct translation " Its appearance is very strange, its face is more than a foot wide, its color is very red, and its eyes are like glass."

According to Chinese scientist Xue Zongzheng, Ashina people looking like West Eurasian represents Sogdian and looking like a East Eurasian is Chinese. So he is claiming the ruling class of Gokturks were mostly Chinese. He is also said looking like "Sogdian " is not akin to looking like Turkic and that's because Qilibi Khan looked Sogdian and didn't look Turkic compared to other Gokturks rulers of the Ashina clan. That means Turkic people look like East Asian.

Turkic people were already mixture of East Eurasians and West Eurasians so it's natural they would look like all Gokturk rulers. Or are you telling me the Yenisei Kirghiz were also West Eurasian looking people aswell and later became East Asian by mixing with Chinese. Anthropology data already showed Yenisei Kirghiz were different from being racially western eurasian people. According to this Xue, the Gokturks rulers were East Asian looking Chinese rulers ruling a Turkic empire. East Asian looks were a Turkic thing to begin with.Ghizz Archus (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Your edits are obviously not NPOV and are aimed at obscuring the color of Muhan Qaghan's eyes, which are described in the Beishi as lapis lazuli (blue). Multiple modern historians have noted that both the Northern Zhou and Beishi descriptions are racial in nature. See the inline citations already included in the article:

From Esin (1980)

They must have been in majority Europeoids although intermarriages with the Chinese had begun long ago. The Kök-Türk ķagan Mu-ķan was also depicted with blue eyes [...]

From Penglin Wang (2018):

*Zhoushu* (50.909) describes the Turkic Qağan Muhan in the following terms: *His appearance is much unusual, for his face is a chi plus broad and is quite reddish, and his eyes look like colored glazes. Since then this kind of racial descriptions suspended in the biographical or ethnic accounts of Turkic rulers in Chinese sources

From Eric Emmerick (1980):

Some of the “Hu", including the Köktürk Qaghan Mu-kan and the Qirghïz Turks, were reported by the Chinese to have Europeoid features, such as aquiline noses, red hair and light-coloured eyes.

Xue Zongzheng does not anywhere state that the Ashina were Chinese or that they looked Chinese. He said, as described in the secondary source from Penglin Wang, and also Emel Esin (1980), that the early Ashina tribe was West Eurasian-looking, and that they later became East Asian-looking through intermarriage with the Chinese.

From Penglin Wang (2018), emphasis mine:

"According to Xue Zongzheng (1992:80), the emergence of less-Caucasoid features in the Turkic ruling class was probably due to the intermarriage with the Chinese imperial families from generation to generation. Consequently, up to the Qağan's eigth generation descendant, Ashina Simo, his racial features remained unchanged to the extent in which he was described as looking like a Hu (Sogdian) person, not akin to Turkic, and suspected to be not of Ashina genealogical strain, and henceforth was unfortunately not trusted for military commandership (JTS 194.5163). Xue Zongzheng argues that 'looking like a Hu person' was originally the intrinsic feature of the Ashina lineage, then became presented as a sign of impure blood as a result of the qualitative change occured in the hybrid physical features combining both Mongoloid and Caucasoid physical traits."

From Esin (1980):

Probably as a result of the repeated marriages of the members of the Kök-Türk dynasty, and particularly Köl Tigin 164 had frankly Mongoloid features.

Please don't add original research to the article, only what the reliable sources say. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You failed to provide any original Chinese quotes that claimed they were blue eyes. You have only one historian from the 80's interpreting his eyes being blue. There is no blue eyes description on the founders, first Ashina/Gokturk was Bumin.

Only the third leader of Gokturk Muqan Qaghan was described with light colored eyes, none of his brothers had that description.

From all you pretty quotes, only Esim (1980) claim he had blue eyes. Penglin Wang (2018) said "colored glazes", that doesn't mean blue Emmerick (1980) said "light colored eyes", that also does not mean blue.

Why wouldn't a Ashina person look like a Turkic western Eurasian, why must it be Sogdian ? What evidence is there for that. All Turks are formed from mixture of Western people and East Asians so all Turks can look East Asian and Western. Because all Turkic ethnicities and populations are biologically formed from East Eurasian and West Eurasian. It is very common and nothing unusual for Turkic parents or families to produce people who look very East Asian and those who look western, and intermediate.

"According to Xue Zongzheng (1992:80), the emergence of less-Caucasoid features in the Turkic ruling class was probably due to the intermarriage with the Chinese imperial families from generation to generation.

Probably yes or no ? This historian isn't very sure of himself or else why would he say "probably" . Basically the historian would have us thinking in last 2 centuries it was ruled by a predominant Chinese ruling class, even the Western Turkic Khaganate expansion to the west in Central Asia and East Europe, were done by a ruling class of Chinese genetically/physically. " So according to this "the people of the Jiankun state all have red hair and green eyes. The ones with dark eyes were descendants of [the Chinese general] Li Ling [who was captured by the Xiongnu]. The Kyrgyz khagans of the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate claimed descent from the Chinese general Li Ling, grandson of the famous Han dynasty general Li Guang. " Are we to believe that the Jiankun state were a people who all have red hair and green eyes while their ruling khan of the Kyrgyz Khaganate was a dark hair Chinese-East Asian looking descendant of a Chinese male general ?

Let's not take a few historians words and their interpretations as real history. I suggest you make a more accurate information. Xue Zongzheng said "properly", meaning he is not even completely sure of himself. Even the reference you used from Esims mentions the word "probably" ( Probably as a result of the repeated marriages, the members of the Kök-Türk dynasty......looked Chinese/Mongoloid). Basically we won't remove the possibility they are correct but we must also make sure others don't think they are absolute correct. Ghizz Archus (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The word "probably" here should not be mis-interpreted as meaning that early Ashina tribe was ever Mongoloid. It simply means the Mongoloid features of the later Ashina tribe were probably inherited from marrying Chinese people (according to Xue Zongzheng). The only other possibility is that they got these features from intermarriages with East Asian-looking people from elsewhere, as in Mongolia or Siberia. From Osman Karatay (2022):

The aforesaid Mukan died in 572 and Kül Tigin was born in 684. It is not known how many Chinese or Mongolian grannies the latter had. In the course of time, the Mongoloid appearance should have increased. Mukan belonged to the first generation of Kök Türks, who spread eastward to Central Mongolia from the Altay zone, and they were likely not mixed up much with the Easterners then.

You're barking up a tree. Pretty much everybody who ever wrote on this subject acknowledges that the early Ashina tribe became East Asian-looking through intermarriages. The only question is did it come from marrying Chinese, or other East Asian looking peoples from the Mongolian plateau or Siberia? But the fact that the early Gokturks were West Eurasian looking isn't disputed or doubted. They became East Asian-looking through intermarriages, and multiple sources note the changes in appearance from guys like Muqan Qaghan to Niri Qaghan to Kul Tigin. And by the way, Osman specifically said the East Asian-looking Göktürks don't resemble Chinese. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and I should drop this wonderful quote from Penglin Wang which immediately precedes his comments on the Ashina tribe's appearance:

It may be pointed out that exogamy practiced among the local people could have promoted intermarriage with any interested members of other tribes. Historical writers had attempted to describe the distinctive characteristics of the human physical out-looks. Their feelings toward human biological diversity are spontaneous and objective. This kind of description is to be read with sober reflections that racial concepts were changing from time to time.

This helps us remember that a person's "racial appearance" does not reflect deep ancestry. The appearance of Kul Tigin, to the uninformed observer, does not betray his ancestors from the century before. We get caught up too much in trying to link a "race" to an ethnic group, when in reality, the appearance of ethnic groups can change over and over again through admixture, genetic drift and selection. The Ashina tribe wasn't a monolith, but a melting pot. Like the rest of humanity. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The word "properly" is like a probability guess. Mongoloid features of Ashina tribe can also be "inherited" by our very own Turkic people with Mongoloid faces (there are so many Turkic ethnic group today as examples), not because Chinese or Mongolian. If they looked Mongoloid because of intermarriages with Chinese or Mongolian than the Ashina families from the 7th and 8th century would be fully aware they are unpure Turks themselves and wouldn't dare discriminate Simo (who also come from the Ashina bloodlines and ancestry). There no' actual evidence that early Ashina looked West Eurasian or East Eurasian. Early Turks were a mixture of both and so they could come out with both looks. No description on the first Qaghan Bumin, and Mukan was only described unusual appearance, having eyes like glass or blue which could still mean a East Asian looking Turk with blue eyes like Yakuts or Tuvans or a intermediate type. The only person that show there was evidence that a Gokturk Ashina leader did look West Eurasian or most likely a intermediate type was Qilibi Khan.

Physical Appearance. Jiu Tangshu described Ashina Simo as resembled Sogdians more than Göktürks. Simo's Sogdian-like appearance aroused suspicion towards him from Khagans Shibi and Chuluo and prevented Simo from becoming Shad.[7][8]

Simo was a relative of Xieli. Because his face was like that of the ‘barbarian (huren 胡人)’ and not like that of the Tujue, Shibi [Khagan] and Chuluo [Khagan] were doubtful of his being one of the Ashina. Thus although he always held the title of Jiabi Teqin [夾畢特勤; ms. 夾畢特勒][a] during Chuluo and Xieli’s time, he could not become a shad (she 設) in command of the army till the end.

By intermediate, they can look in-between or slightly more East or West. You can't predict and describe how they exactly look. For example like these , first one looks mixed but more East Asian and second look roughly half. How dod we know the early Ashina or Asimo didn't look like these (especially the second one)

https://www.jimmynelsonfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/jimmy-nelson-foundation-culture-education-kazakh-lesson-2-people-XXX_6.jpg

https://www.jimmynelson.com/media/images/Kazakh/VI_26_Kazakh_Tolkhin___Ulaankhus__Bayan_Oglii___Mongolia__2011_Jimmy%20Nelson.jpg

Don't call this original research. Unless there is absolute evidence that early Ashina looked like a "Hu" but even Chinese people from Qing dynasty described Uyghurs as looking like "Hu" people and Uyghurs are clearly mixed race. In Turkey, you can find some Nogay Tatars and Uyghurs with similar looks in those pics. Even among Turks from Turkey, there are people born with mixed race appearance because Turkish people are also a mixture of East/West but a lower levels.

So Simo's so called Sogdian-like appearance could be just Turkic variation of West Eurasian. Shibi and Chuluo properly resembled Northeast Asian Turks. Regardless they would all fit a Turkic description. This Ashina incident was only one example, most other Ashina never had these experiences. Anyone with some knowledge of Central Asians know how diverse the physical spectrum of Turkic people can be. There's no need for the explanation of intermarriage with Sogdian, Chinese, Mongolian. I acknowledge there was intermarriage but I don't agree that their appearance being attributed to different ethnic groups. A Turkic leader can look East Eurasian or West Eurasian because Turkic blood is a mixture a both. These historians would be interpreting that the ruling class became Chinese/Mongolian people ruling over Turkic people.

Jagdish Gundara · 2012 " The many peoples belonging to the Turkic group often possess different physical features and the only common cultural feature is language.Ghizz Archus (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Edit warring

Ghizz Archus, Hunan201p, it looks like you have been slowly edit warring around similar content since May of this year. I've reverted the changes reinserted today by Ghizz Archus, in line with WP:BRD, but have no personal opinion on the content dispute at issue here. Since it looks like you've already attempted to discuss this between yourselves in the section above and failed to reach consensus, I would recommend you proceed to either WP:3O or WP:DRN to sort this issue out. If those methods are unsuccessful, the next step would be an RFC. It should go without saying that further edit warring will be met with blocks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I just want to say Hunan201p is always editing in Turkic history with Iranian theories. These blue tags you suggested just makes everything more complicated and confusing to me. I've never used any of them before, and even with instructions I might still get confused.

Why does Hunan201p gets to have the reverted version that he wants, when he is the one that gave up in the end. He gave up since nearly the end of May. He is always one that's gives up having any more further discussion (like in many talk pages in he engages in). I know talk page isn't any contest of wins and loses but I edited my version since 2nd of June. Which lasted for 2 months. [12] Hunan201p only recently changed it this month and starts discredting everything. Why did he leave everything for 2 months and than decided to revert to his version and not leave any explanation on the talk page?

I can show you that he has a history of giving up disccusions and engage in edit warring, this is also the reason why he been editing thousands of pages, with each of them lasting only 1-2 minutes, because he doesn't want people to know of his bad behaviour history from 2020's and 2021. It's very suspicious when you look at his past history. What I'm saying is Hunan210p shouldn't have the reverted version he wants. Rosguill, helping revert to the version he wants is exactly what he wants. His tactic is just to waste time and avoid engaging in further discussion and hoping I give up with complications.Ghizz Archus (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You are expected to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines if you want to edit here, please read through the links I provided more carefully. If you add new content and it is reverted by another editor, you are expected to move towards finding a consensus. If you can't come to agreement, you as the moving party are expected to escalate the issue by requesting third-party input through WP:3O, WP:DRN, or WP:RFC (for this dispute, DRN or 3O are more appropriate at this point since it's only the two of you involved). If you have concerns about an editor's behavior across multiple articles and believe that they are in violation of Wikipedia policy, you can file a case at WP:ANI by following the instructions there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Ghizz Archus - I will add to User:Rosguill. If you have a content issue with User:Hunan201p, discuss content rather than contributors. Your comments here are casting aspersions. Either make them at WP:ANI, or, better, don't make them.

Response to third opinion request:

Ghizz Archus (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like that someone help out because Hunan201p only wants to edit his Indo-European theories/references in Ashina and Turkic pages. Can this link be used as a source on historical Kyrgyz people ? Ghizz Archus (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not answering the Third Opinion because I am not sure whether the dispute really is about content of the article, the book as a source, or something else. You may not use that link as a source, because it is broken, and requires that an editor issue a Clear command to view the page, and because it is not clear what that page has to do with the controversy. The book appears to be a reliable source. Remember that the key policy that reliable sources support is verifiability, so that a book has to say something that supports material in an article. It isn't clear to me whether the content of the book supports a content issue. I am closing the Third Opinion request as unanswered because not clearly asked. You may post another Third Opinion request, but be more specific. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

<your response> Ghizz Archus (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I need a third opinion again. Please explain or tell me what is wrong. My contents on the article of Ashina tribe had been edited since the 2nd of June to the 3rd of August (2+ months) and with the help of many editors helping fixing all my links and references up to 4th of July. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=1096439797&oldid=1094279301. Recently this month I had been in a edit warring with @Hunan201p: who disagrees, and I'd request he provide the reasoning here for convenience and clarity. Hunan201p has not provided me with any answer since 28th of May. I really do not know if he disagrees with me everything or just part of. I replied and explained everything but Hunan201p refuses to engage in any more dispute and just revert to the version of the page he wants (in Ashina tribe article) do so and instead engage in edit warring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashina_tribe#Correcting_some_mistakes I would like someone to tell me who is wrong.Ghizz Archus (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Response

I have several reasons for opposing Ghizz Archus's edits to the article[13][14]:

• First, he was adding excessive detail about the Kirghiz tribe, much of which is inappropriately sourced, fails to verify, is discounted by the other sources, and not relevant. This section is about the Ashina tribe's appearance, not Ghizz Archus's original research on the Kirghiz tribe.

• Secondly, there is the deletion of whole sentences from the article, resulting in incomprensible fused sentences. Ghizz Archus's writing is often unintelligible. This may be because English is not his first language, or because he is deliberately trying to muddy up the article and make it as confusing as possible for the reader. For example, this sentence, which was easily understood:

According to Chinese scientist Xue Zongzheng, the early members of 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.

Becomes this:

According to Chinese scientist Xue Zongzheng own opinion, the early members of the Ashina tribe properly had physical features that were quite different from those of East Asian people and were properly the result of intermarrying Chinese. Xue believes early Ashina's had physical features 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. Xue claims that Hu (Sogdian) person, not akin to Turkic

This is a needless destruction of the original paragraph. It reads like a garbled radio transmission from an alien UFO. Nothing can be learned from this.

However the addition of the words "own opinion" ahead of Xue Zongzheng's name are definitely POV. The citation for Xue Zongzheng is a secondary source, from Penglin Wang, who is endorsing Xue Zongzheng's theory.

Also, Emel Esin, who is cited in this section, writes very similarly. On page 116, she reaches the very same conclusion as Xue Zongzheng, that members of the Ashina tribe developed a more East Asian appearance as a result of intermarrying with Chinese royalty. She also wrote on page 33:

"Zuev thinks that the name A-shi-na given by the Chinese to the Kök-Türk dynasty was derived from the Uysun, which he considers the authentic form of Wu-sun. Indeed the Chinese historians saw the descendents of the Wu-sun in the fair and blue eyed members of the Kök-Türk tribe. Some other scholars have considered the Wu-sun amongst the ancestors of the turcophone tribes.

This was written over a decade before Xue Zongzheng's paper was published. So this is a really straightforward view that completely unrelated people are forming. It's not like Xue Zongzheng is a lone scholar advocating an opinionated or fringe theory here. For Ghizz Archus to put "own opinion" in front of Xue Zongzheng is POV pushing.

And from Boris Zhikov[15], quoting Stoianov (2004):

The strong Iranian influence among the Turks of Ashina enables V. Stoianov to pose the question: "what if the Turk(yut)s represented a type of Turkicized Iranians, or what if they, being Turks in the present day meaning of the word, absorbed Iranian elements as well?"²⁷ This also prompts P.Golden to as quite possible that "religious and attendant concepts of royal ideology came to the Turkic peoples from from Iranian or even earlier Indo-Iranian contacts”.28 Or, put another way, “the allegedly mixed Saka-Altaic or possibly Wusun-Altaic origin of the Turks is reflected in their social structure, preserved terminology and even their appearance”.29

As if it needs repeating, from Osman Karatay (2022):[16]

The aforesaid Mukan died in 572 and Kül Tigin was born in 684. It is not known how many Chinese or Mongolian grannies the latter had. In the course of time, the Mongoloid appearance should have increased. Mukan belonged to the first generation of Kök Türks, who spread eastward to Central Mongolia from the Altay zone, and they were likely not mixed up much with the Easterners then.

It's the predominant view among scholars that the Old Türks had Iranian influence and physical appearances, and that this decreased over time due to intermarriages. It's not just Xue Zongzheng saying this. To put "his own opinion" in front of his name is just plain POV and original research.

Moving on, Ghizz Archus has strangely reverted incorrect content to the article. This entry to the article:

Esin notes that the later depiction of an Ashina prince, the Bust of Kul Tigin, has an East Asian appearance.

Became this, after Ghizz Archus edited it:

Esin notes that the later depictions of Ashina princes,' such as the Bust of Kul Tigin, have an East Asian appearance.

So, what did Emel Esin actually say in the inline citation?

Probably as a result of the repeated marriages, the members of the Kök-Türk dynasty (pl. XLVII/a), and particularly Köl Tigin, had frankly Mongoloid features.

There's only one prince depiction mentioned there (Kul Tigin). What Ghizz Archus should have said is that other members of the dynasty were East Asian looking, not "princes".

Then there's this addition to the article:

However, according to 11th century Persian historian Gardizi, the Kyrgyz were mixed with "Saqlabs" (Slavs), which explains the incidences of red hair and white skin among the Kyrgyz and that they were partly of non-Turkic origin.

This is, again, faulty on multiple points.

• This content is swaying too far off of this section's subject matter, which is the physical appearance of the Ashina tribe members, something that should be straightforward. Just like it is in all the other "physical appearance" sections in other ethnic articles, and in biographies.

• An 11th century Arab scholar's opinions about the Yenisei Kirghiz are not notable in this context and should not be cited as actual reasoning for the appearance of the Kirghiz. No scholar actually believes that this ancient Turkic people, in the 11th century AD, were red haired or whatever because they were mixed with Slavs. Lee & Kuang take note of Gardizi's assumption, and discount it entirely, offering that the West Eurasian physiognomy of the 11th century Kirghiz was due to Eurasian Indo-Europeans, not Slavs:[17]

The descent of the Qirghiz (Kyrgyz) of the Tien Shan Mountains region (Kyrgyzstan) from the Yenisei Qirghiz is debated among historians.48 However, among the modern Turkic peoples, the former have the highest percentage of R1a1 (over 60%). Since the West Eurasian physiognomy of the Yenisei Qirghiz recorded in the Xin Tangshu was in all likelihood a reflection of their Eurasian Indo-European marker R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93), one may conjecture that the Tien Shan Qirghiz (Kyrgyz) received their R1a1 marker from the Yenisei Qirghiz.49 That is, the former are descended from the latter.

Another paper, on pages 407-408 also points out that this admixture has nothing to do with Slavic groups:[18]

The second most common haplogroup in the total population was R1a1a (M17, M198 × M458) (27.9%).The highest frequency of R1a1a was observed in theMatur sample (43.5%); in Sagai of the Askizskii district it accounted for approximately one third of all Y chromosomes. In Kachins, this lineage was nearlyabsent. In South Siberia, in addition to the Khakass, this haplogroup is common in Southern Altaians and Teleuts; it was also reported in Siberian Tatars, Khanty, North Altaians, and Tuvinians. Analysis of the published data suggests that most R1a1a chromosomes of South Siberian ethnic groups belong to a single genetic corpus drastically different from the European in the assortment of microsatellite haplotypes [31]. The occurrence of this haplogroup in Siberia can be related to the Caucasian component. Supposedly, the appearance of R1a1a in South Siberian ethnic groups is associated with their ethnogenesis in the Bronze Age, when early Indo–Europeans were resettling to the East. It is known that the structure of Siberian and East European R1a1a haplotypes is completely different, and the presence of this haplogroup in aboriginal Siberian populations is not related to their recent miscegenation to Slavs [31]

So we have more authors in agreement that the West Eurasian component of South Siberians is due to early Indo Europeans migrating to Siberia, not due to Slavs (late Indo Europeans). No modern scholar is actually arguing that Slavic admixture made the Kirghiz look West Eurasian. They all belive that it was earlier Indo European groups who lived in Eurasia, and this is based on historical as well as genetic evidence.

And finally, I'll add an example of Ghizz Archus falsifying a source, in edit 1091151362

Not only is this not a reliable source (Bradt travel guide), it is another unnecessary addition of irrelevant, voluminous, off-topic original research from Ghizz Archus. The article is supposed to be about the Ashina tribe's appearance, not the Kirghiz. And why didn't Lee & Kuang, Emel Esin, or any other authors who described the Kyrgyz mention these "Mongol features"? In fact, all that is mentioned by Lee & Kuang was simple pigmentation traits, like on page 205[19], and these features are linked to Chinese admixture rather than Mongol. But for some reason Ghizz Archus wants to ignore anything Chinese in Turkic history.

So, this sums up most, but not all, of my observations. I may add another one or two later, but it pains me to do so, for the reader's sake. I have much empathy for the people who may be dragged in to this conflagration of text. - Hunan201p (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hunan201p, I have not removed anything from your sources but you removed everything I edited because you don't want a alternative view about about the physical appearance of the Ashina tribe. I find it strange that last time you removed everything I edited without explaning anything now you telling me you have problem with everything.

Kyrgyz You have no reason to remove these historically recorded facts. Your own opinion doesn't matter as what matters are evidences and facts. It is not a confirmed fact that Kyrgyz were west Eurasian, many other sources contradicts it. They were were most likely East and West mixtures and also they were partly of non-Turkic origin.

"Chinese sources from the Tang dynasty (608-906 AD) described these Kyrgyz tribes as being fair skinned, green eyes, red haired people, with a mixture of European and Mongol features.

Kyrgyzstan by Lauren Mitchelle

https://books.google.com/books?id=lKKLDwAAQBAJ&dq=mixture+of+European+and+Mongol+features&pg=PA12

" According to 11th century Persian historian Gardizi, the Kyrgyz were mixed with "Saqlabs" (Slavs), which explains the incidences of red hair and white skin among the Kyrgyz and that they were partly of non-Turkic origin. The T'ang shu chronicles remarks that the Ch'ien-Kun, the ancestors of the Yenisei Kyrgyz, were called Hsia-Ch'ia-ssu in Tang times and were also known as " mixed Ting Ling ".

Source: History of Civilizations of Central Asia

https://books.google.com/books?id=18eABeokpjEC&dq=Yenisei+kyrgyz+mongoloid+europoid&pg=PA198

The appearance of Ashina tribe

All your sources Xue Zongzheng and Boris Zhikov always suggest the word possible, meaning they are not absolutely sure they are 100% correct. Where's the evidence that that Ashina tribe represent Iranian type when they were possibly mixed race in appearance.

You certainly have no right to remove this. Even you don't dare deny Qilibi Khan's relative's [[Shibi Khan] and Chuluo Khan looked like East Asian or Northeast Asian Turk while Qilibi Khans were rejected for having a Sogdian physical appearance

In the Old Book of Tang records that Qilibi Khan Khan was forbidden from assuming the title of Shad, due to his Sogdian-like physical appearance. According to Zongzheng, having a physical appearance like a Sogdian was, by this time, being presented as a sign of mixed ancestry among the Ashina. Asimo was of the same royal Ashina clan as the khans of Tujue (Turks). However, despite's Asimo's lineage, Gokturks rulers Shibi Khan ( ruler of the Eastern Turkic Khaganate) and Chuluo Khan ( ruler of the Western Turkic Khaganate 新疆古尸 古代新疆居民及其文化 By 王炳华 · 2001, 210 page Accounts of the Turks. Vo.1. The old History of the Tang dynasty Tujue: " Simo was a member of the Jielie tribe Shibi (Eastern Turk Kaghan) and Chuluo (Western Turk Kaghan) " had doubts because his appearance was that of Sogdian (Hu) rather than Tujue (Turks).<ref.Suspected he was not a member of the Ashina clan (of Turks) because his appearance like a barbarian (Hu), not like a Turk's. Therefore, during the time of Chuluo and Jieli he was of course a middle level official, but never received military commission. The Ashina clans suspected him of being born out of an adulterous relationship, and therefore did not entrust him with great authorities.

Meaning you also had no reason to this

According to historians Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang, Chinese official histories do not depict early Turkic peoples as "belonging to a single uniform entity called ‘Turks’." However "Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as typically possessing East/Inner Asian physiognomy, as well as occasionally having West Eurasian physiognomy" and that "like Chinese historians, Muslim writers in general depict the ‘Turks’ as possessing East Asian physiognomy"

Also this

only Esim (1980) claim he had blue eyes. Penglin Wang (2018) said "colored glazes", that doesn't mean blue Emmerick (1980) said "light colored eyes"

Here some things I will suggest edit and there's no reason for you to remove it. There's no reason for you remove them

1) I will edit back Shibi Khan and Chuluo Khan looking the opposite of Qilibi Khan. There is no disagreement here as this is mainstream facts and even from your own very source shows it. 2) I will also edit back historians Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang on their description of early Turks like in other Turkic pages, even you had you used those sources yourself.

As for... 3) As for the Kyrgyz, I will think about it later. There's really no reason for you to reject them as not credible because the origin of the the Yenesei Kyrgyz is not completely clear yet. I'm editing Kyrgyz based on historical facts from the old book of Tang and 11th century Persian historian Gardizi. A genetic theory claiming R1a and Ashina is related. Unless the bodies of the Yenesei Kyrgyz khagans had been dugged up and examined, everything remains only a speculation. It could also be haplogroup J2, R1b, I, J mtDNA H, W, J, I. I'm not removing the claim R1a and Ashina ruling class could be connected but this is obviously not proven Ghizz Archus (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hunan201p, I have not removed anything from your sources but you removed everything I edited because you don't want a alternative view about about the physical appearance of the Ashina tribe

None of the sources you provide offer an alternative view about the physical appearance of the Ashina tribe, so what you're actually doing is POV editing and original research.

Kyrgyz You have no reason to remove these historically recorded facts. Your own opinion doesn't matter as what matters are evidences and facts. It is not a confirmed fact that Kyrgyz were west Eurasian, many other sources contradicts it.

There are several reasons for removing what you added to the article, including

• The article is about the Ashina tribe, not the Yenisei Kirghiz tribe. You are adding paragraphs of content about the Yenisei Kirghiz, with the admitted intent of creating a POV "view" not promoted in the sources, inckuding unreliable sources like a travel guide.
• Lee & Kuang (2017) say nothing about the Yenisei Kirghiz having "Mongol features" but do mention that they later became mixed. See page 224, footnote 78.

All your sources Xue Zongzheng and Boris Zhikov always suggest the word possible, meaning they are not absolutely sure they are 100% correct. Where's the evidence that that Ashina tribe represent Iranian type when they were possibly mixed race in appearance.

That's incorrect, but even if it is true, what's your point? Wikipedia is about summarizing the views of reliable sources, it is not required that they are "certain". The evidence has already been posted to the article showing that the Ashina tribe members are considered to have been both mixed, East Asian-looking, and Iranian-looking. Why are you complaining?

You certainly have no right to remove this. Even you don't dare deny Qilibi Khan's relative's Shibi Khan and Chuluo Khan looked like East Asian or Northeast Asian Turk

Again, what are you complaining about? Qibi Khan's incident is already mentioned at the article. I did not remove that from the article, what I removed was your completely unnecessary, WP:TOOMUCH re-mentioning this incident when it already had a huge paragraph about it.

I will also edit back historians Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang on their description of early Turks like in other Turkic pages, even you had you used those sources yourself.

And I insist, there is no reason at all to add this content. This section is about the *Ashina* tribe. This section already mentions again and again the mixed nature of the Ashina tribe and their different appearances, so adding this quote is just more WP:HOARD.

As for the Kyrgyz, I will think about it later. There's really no reason for you to reject them as not credible because the origin of the the Yenesei Kyrgyz is not completely clear yet. I'm editing Kyrgyz based on historical facts from the old book of Tang and 11th century Persian historian Gardizi.

Bro, why waste time thinking about it? Just file a third opinion request like you've been saying you would for the last several days. This article is about the Ashina tribe, not the Yenizei Kyrgyz. Remember not all facts are WP:RELEVANT. Gardizi's opinions of the Yenisei Kyrgyz from 1000 years ago are several times removed from this subject.

A genetic theory claiming R1a and Ashina is related. Unless the bodies of the Yenesei Kyrgyz khagans had been dugged up and examined, everything remains only a speculation. It could also be haplogroup J2, R1b, I, J mtDNA H, W, J, I. I'm not removing the claim R1a and Ashina ruling class could be connected but this is obviously not proven

If that was the case any one of these scholars would have mentioned it. They don't. If you have a reliable source that offers an alternative DNA hypothesis, please post it to the article.

And in the meantime, I think you need to file a third opinion request like you've been saying you would for days.[20][21]. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

My dispute is with you Hunan201p. A third opinion request is not needed if we have no problem, the fact that you do still have a problem makes me believe there is clearly a bias on how sources are used. This is not about failure to understand that different individuals have different perspectives.

I'm basically using the same sources you are using and they are the same contents. Point out the real problem don't accuse others of creating a POV "view"

1) You used Lee & Kuang (2017). If you can point out Ashina, or the Kök Türks , Qirghiz differed in appereance than why can't we make deeper explanation for differences

What Lee & Kuang said " 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. However, like Chinese historians, Muslim writers in general depict the ‘Turks’ as possessing East Asian physiognomy. (p. 207) "

In sum, one should note that the early eastern Turkic peoples were in all likelihood genetically closer to their neighbouring Mongolic peoples than to various later Turkic peoples of central and western Eurasia. (pp. 227-228):

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. This means that the various Turkic peoples did not have a common patrilineal origin or uniform physiognomy. Notably, the Xiongnu themselves, whether they were a Turkic-speaking entity or not, were a hybrid people composed of carriers of both East and Inner Eurasian haplogroups C2, N, and Q and West Eurasian haplogroup R1a1.(p. 228-229) "

What I edit is about Kök Türks and Ashina. I'm not going to edit their genetics but how Chinese and muslim writers depicted Gokturks (Turkic people) explaining why people like Simo (Qilibi Khan) got refused from becoming a Shad.

2) You used Jiu Tangshu as sources. What is wrong with pointing out it was Khagans Shibi Khan and Chuluo Khan (rulers of the western and eastern Gokturks ) that prevented Qilibi Khan from becoming Shads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qilibi_Khan#Physical_Appearance Jiu Tangshu described Ashina Simo as resembled Sogdians more than Göktürks. Simo's Sogdian-like appearance aroused suspicion towards him from Khagans Shibi and Chuluo and prevented Simo from becoming Shad. txt: ‘思摩者, 頡利族人也. 始畢、處羅以其貌似胡人, 不類突厥, 疑非阿史那族類, 故歷處羅, 頡利世, 常為夾畢特勒, 終不得典兵為設’translated by and quoted in Lee & Kuang (2017) "A Comparative Analysis of Chinese Historical Sources and Y-DNA Studies with Regard to the Early and Medieval Turkic Peoples", Inner Asia 19. p. 201-202. note 13

Simo was a relative of Xieli. Because his face was like that of the ‘barbarian (huren 胡人)’ and not like that of the Tujue, Shibi [Khagan] and Chuluo [Khagan] were doubtful of his being one of the Ashina. Thus although he always held the title of Jiabi Teqin [夾畢特勤; ms. 夾畢特勒] during Chuluo and Xieli’s time, he could not become a shad (she 設) in command of the army till the end.

There should not be any disagreement.

Answering questions

I'll answer your questions but remember that you were blocked partly for misusing and throwing around Wikipedia rules. Every response you made is to prevent from editing absolutely anything you don't like or don't want to see.

1)"The article is about the Ashina tribe, not the Yenisei Kirghiz tribe. You are adding paragraphs of content about the Yenisei Kirghiz"

Your the one who added Yenesei Khirghiz from genetics to their appearance. You also added Similarly, Turkish historian Emel Esin noted that the early members of the Ashina tribe, much like the Yenisei Kirghiz, had more Europeoid features. I have nothing against what you wrote, all I did was only added extra information, is isn't any huge paragraph. Just a short sentence. Is not even confirmed that that Yenisei Kyrgyz were Europoid or that hey had Europoid facial features than Mongoloid. Yet the way the Ashina tribe article is edited is to make people believe that they were Europoid looking who became East Asian looking by intermixing.

2)"Lee & Kuang (2017) say nothing about the Yenisei Kirghiz having "Mongol features" but do mention that they later became mixed"

Since when did people Lee & Kuang (2017) represent the only facts and alternative facts. I used the Old Tang Book and 11th century Persian historian which is far more reliable when describing Yenisei Kirghiz appearance.

3) That's incorrect, but even if it is true, what's your point?

What's incorrect ?

Notice they said 'Possibly' or 'Probably'. Possibly means that it is possible something may or may not happen but it is not guaranteed. Probably. Means that something happening is more likely,

From Esin (1980)

Properly as a result of the repeated marriages of the members of the Kök-Türk dynasty, and particularly Köl Tigin 164 had frankly Mongoloid features.

From Xue (1992)

According to Xue Zongzheng (1992:80), the emergence of less-Caucasoid features in the Turkic ruling class was probably due to the intermarriage with the Chinese imperial families from generation to generation.

From Boris Zhikov quoting Stoianov (2004)

The strong Iranian influence among the Turks of Ashina enables V. Stoianov to pose the question: "what if the Turk(yut)s represented a type of Turkicized Iranians, or what if they, being Turks in the present day meaning of the word, absorbed Iranian elements as well?"²⁷ This also prompts P.Golden to as quite that "religious and attendant concepts of royal ideology came to the Turkic peoples from from Iranian or even earlier Indo-Iranian contacts”.28 Or, put another way, “the allegedly mixed Saka-Altaic or possibly Wusun-Altaic origin of the Turks is reflected in their social structure, preserved terminology and even their appearance”.

Now I'm going to use Boris Zhikov suggesting that the Ashina were mixed Saka-Altaic. Something you didn't state. I'm also going to add words like 'possibly' and 'probably'. These historians are not even sure what they exactly looked like or how they were formed.

4) Again, what are you complaining about? Qibi Khan's incident is already mentioned at the article. I did not remove that from the article, what I removed was your completely unnecessary, WP:TOOMUCH re-mentioning this incident when it already had a huge paragraph about it.

I'm not making a massive paragraph. I'm only adding 1 and half sentence extra. How is that too much ? "Jiu Tangshu described Ashina Simo as resembled Sogdians more than Göktürks. Simo's Sogdian-like appearance aroused suspicion towards him from Khagans. Gokturks rulers Shibi Khan (611–619 AD) of Eastern Turkic Khaganate) and Chuluo Khan (619-621 AD) of Western Turkic Khaganate) both had doubt of and prevented Simo from becoming Shad.[66][67]" If you want I can make it shorter. Why do I need your approval for that?

So many wikipedian articles write way more paragraphs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sicily#Norman_kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors#Moors_of_Iberia

5) And I insist, there is no reason at all to add this content. This section is about the *Ashina* tribe. This section already mentions again and again the mixed nature of the Ashina tribe and their different appearances, so adding this quote is just more WP:HOARD.

I failed to see a reason. I'm not making a huge paragraph and all I'm adding is two famous historical Gokturk Khans. Their names should at least be mentioned.

6) As for the Kyrgyz, I will think about it later. There's really no reason for you to reject them as not credible because the origin of the the Yenesei Kyrgyz is not completely clear yet. I'm editing Kyrgyz based on historical facts from the old book of Tang and 11th century Persian historian Gardizi

The book I used is a realiable source. User:Robert McClenon already answered. All I need to do is to fix the broken link.

"I am not answering the Third Opinion because I am not sure whether the dispute really is about content of the article, the book as a source, or something else. You may not use that link as a source, because it is broken, and requires that an editor issue a Clear command to view the page, and because it is not clear what that page has to do with the controversy. The book appears to be a reliable source. Remember that the key policy that reliable sources support is verifiability, so that a book has to say something that supports material in an article. It isn't clear to me whether the content of the book supports a content issue. I am closing the Third Opinion request as unanswered because not clearly asked. You may post another Third Opinion request, but be more specific. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC) "

https://books.google.com/books?id=lKKLDwAAQBAJ&dq=mixture+of+European+and+Mongol+features&pg=PA12

" According to 11th century Persian historian Gardizi, the Kyrgyz were mixed with "Saqlabs" (Slavs), which explains the incidences of red hair and white skin among the Kyrgyz and that they were partly of non-Turkic origin. The T'ang shu chronicles remarks that the Ch'ien-Kun, the ancestors of the Yenisei Kyrgyz, were called Hsia-Ch'ia-ssu in Tang times and were also known as " mixed Ting Ling ".

7)A genetic theory claiming R1a and Ashina is related. Unless the bodies of the Yenesei Kyrgyz khagans had been dugged up and examined, everything remains only a speculation. It could also be haplogroup J2, R1b, I, J mtDNA H, W, J, I. I'm not removing the claim R1a and Ashina ruling class could be connected but this is obviously not proven

Why don't you make a Third opinion request because I'm sure you don't want to. Really, a third opinion request on everything you disagreeing with me, even on the simplest and smallest things. There's not a single thing that you agree with me. Ghizz Archus (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm basically using the same sources you are using and they are the same contents

This is obviously not true. We are not using the same sources or the same content.

The book I used is a realiable source. User:Robert McClenon already answered. All I need to do is to fix the broken link.

No, read what Robert actually said to you:

I am not answering the Third Opinion because I am not sure whether the dispute really is about content of the article, the book as a source, or something else. You may not use that link as a source, because it is broken, and requires that an editor issue a Clear command to view the page, and because it is not clear what that page has to do with the controversy. The book appears to be a reliable source. Remember that the key policy that reliable sources support is verifiability, so that a book has to say something that supports material in an article. It isn't clear to me whether the content of the book supports a content issue. I am closing the Third Opinion request as unanswered because not clearly asked. You may post another Third Opinion request, but be more specific.

Robert wasn't even able to read your link. Verifiability isn't the minimum standard for throwing links around. You also have to demonstrate the relevance to the content issue, like Robert told you. You have failed to demonstrate where this source says anything about the Ashina tribe, because it doesn't say anything about them. It's about the Yenizei Kirghiz tribe, who were alread mentioned Lee & Kuang. You never successfully filed a third opinion request so I suggest you do so, in the simplest and most coherent way possible.

I failed to see a reason. I'm not making a huge paragraph and all I'm adding is two famous historical Gokturk Khans. Their names should at least be mentioned.

Read the article. They're already mentioned. I did not remove their names from the article. I removed your WP:HOARD redundant additions about them.

Now I'm going to use Boris Zhikov suggesting that the Ashina were mixed Saka-Altaic. Something you didn't state. I'm also going to add words like 'possibly' and 'probably'. These historians are not even sure what they exactly looked like or how they were formed.

Another misleading comment. Zhikov quotes[22] Stoianov (2004) saying in no uncertain terms that the appearance of the Ashina reflects an Iranian origin.

Notice they said 'Possibly' or 'Probably'. Possibly means that it is possible something may or may not happen but it is not guaranteed. Probably. Means that something happening is more likely,

It doesn't matter. See WP:TRUTH. I have never presented this material as anything other than a dominant opinion among scholars. You are overstepping your responsibilities as a Wikipedia editor by trying to "disprove" these sources with original research, which:

• doesn't claim to discount anything about this research, and
• doesn't even concern the Ashina tribe

Your the one who added Yenesei Khirghiz from genetics to their appearance. You also added Similarly, Turkish historian Emel Esin noted that the early members of the Ashina tribe, much like the Yenisei Kirghiz, had more Europeoid features. I have nothing against what you wrote, all I did was only added extra information, is isn't any huge paragraph.

This discussion is about the physical appearance of Ashina. That these authors briefly mentioned the early Yenisei Kirghiz without mentioning your counterpoints ought to clue you in as to whether or not anything you're adding is relevant. And yes your goal is to add about 3 paragraphs worth of content to what should be a short section, as reflected in Rosguill's diff

Since when did people Lee & Kuang (2017) represent the only facts and alternative facts. I used the Old Tang Book and 11th century Persian historian which is far more reliable when describing Yenisei Kirghiz appearance.

The issue is that you're using Gardizi as an actual source to dispute the reason for the Kirghiz appearance, which is discounted by Lee & Kuang, who say that the Yenisei Kirghiz's appearance is due to their Iranian ancestry. Lee & Kuang are a far superior, secondary source. No other source says the Yenisei Kirghiz were mixed with Slavs. Also, did I forget to mention... This content has nothing to do with the Ashina tribe's physical appearance.

What I edit is about Kök Türks and Ashina. I'm not going to edit their genetics but how Chinese and muslim writers depicted Gokturks (Turkic people) explaining why people like Simo (Qilibi Khan) got refused from becoming a Shad. 2) You used Jiu Tangshu as sources. What is wrong with pointing out it was Khagans Shibi Khan and Chuluo Khan (rulers of the western and eastern Gokturks ) that prevented Qilibi Khan from becoming Shads.

Again, the description of Turks in general is not relevant, and the Shibi and Chuluo content is already mentioned in this section. WP:HOARD. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Be Concise

User:Ghizz Archus, User:Hunan201p - Your exchange of posts is Too Long, didn't read. If you request a Third Opinion, it will have to be short enough so that the volunteer can understand what the question is. If you keep on posting at such length, you will be ignored (probably both of you). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

At this point the discussion is far too complicated for 3O. There's multiple different points in contention, 3O could likely handle only 1 at a time. DRN could work, maybe. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. I recently made a lengthy reply to Ghizz Archus after this section was created, but didn't expect anyone but him to read it. This will almost certainly go to DRN unless Ghizz Archus can make short and concise 3O requests for each chunk he wants to add to the article. If not, I will. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, @Rosguill:. I feel very frustrated because I knew this outcome would happen. I really didn't want to write so much but how else would anyone understand the difficult situation I'm in, created by Hunan. I suggest reverting to my original version and let Hunan201p do the third opinion request. I could ask for several 3OR and still wouldn't sort our dispute because Hunan201p disagrees with me on everything He created a huge wall of questions and disagrees with in everything, leading me to make a huge wall of answers, making everything even more complicated. Hunan201p disagrees on even the smallest things, despite the fact I'm using the very same sources/authors that he himself is using. He now even tries to prevent me from editing a extra sentence from the same sources he uses by claiming everything is too long and unnecessary. There actually many wikipedia articles that have 2x to 6x times the size of the paragraph but why doesn't he talk about that. The truth is our dispute should have continued when I last edited on 23:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC) with my version being the current one instead, otherwise what's the point of asking others to engage in discussion anymore?

Hunan201p control what should be edited and how it should be edited. Please understand I'm dealing with someone who manipulates the rules and time in Wikipedia disccusions.Hunan201p makes a huge wall of contribution. He edits like 40 to 50 wikipedia pages everyday. Creating a massive wall to prevent any user or admin from looking at his behaviour at talk pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hunan201p

Please see this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=958378105#Disruptive_editing_at_User_talk:Hunan201pComments by Administators on Hunan201p and giving block for his behaviour; Avoid talk page disccusion, avoid building concensus, gibberish reasons, everything under a fake banner to edit to his preferred version. Ghizz Archus (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Ghizz Archus, the solution here is to break up the edits you're proposing into discrete chunks that can actually be discussed without needing a wall of text. Either actually do them one at a time, or create sub-sections for them so that there's no confusion about what point is in contention in any given discussion. If you want to make accusations of bad faith behavior, ANI is that way. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Rossguill, I'm not good with all this ANI may not even know how to use it. You say break up the edits I am proposing ? Simply look at what Hunan201p wrote in the end.

Hunan210p said " Again, the description of Turks in general is not relevant, and the Shibi and Chuluo content is already mentioned in this section. WP:HOARD. "

Hunan201p is deciding what is relevant and claiming the content is already mentioned (or his previous reason: paragraph is too long). The current edited page doesn't mention important Gokturk rulers or Khagans like Shibi Khan and Chuluo Khan, they are the one who refused allowing Qilibi Khan to become shad. Hunan201p doesn't want the names of the ruling Khagans to be to be edited because he thinks it's unnecessary. I will the very least edit their names, it's not like Hunan is given the authority to stop other editors.Ghizz Archus (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You are required to work towards consensus with other editors. If you are not able to break down your arguments to make them accessible to uninvolved editors, I'm afraid you do not have the necessary skills to be editing contentious topics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Requesting help to build a consensus

I have few things I want to edit in the physical appearance of this article but currently I am being prevented by Hunan201p to edit on anything. Can anyone out there please give me your opinions. You can check the history I had my edited version on the article of Ashina tribe] since 2nd of June, for a total of 2 months and 3 days.P Keep in mind I first started this dispute first and replied everything till the end (above this article titled " Correcting some mistakes) Hunan201p 2 months didn't respond and than just decides to have everything removed.

Tell me if there's any problem.

1) Hunan201p used Lee and Kuang (2017) as sources in first paragraph but is not clear enough. It makes no explanation why they are different. I also use Lee and Kuang (2017) to explain further why historical records described Gokturks and Kirghiz so differently.

2) Editing Gokturk Khagans like Shibi Khan (also known as Ashina Duojishi) and Chuluo Khan were the reason for denying Simo from being a Shad for having Sogdian physical appearance just like it's stated in the Qilibi Khan page.

3) I also want to make it more clear by adding physical description of Kyrgyz from the Old Tang of Book and 11th century Persian historian source no.1 and source no.2

Please give your opinion if you agree.Ghizz Archus (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why Human 201p should stop you. All your previous references demonstrated to be based on reliable, published sources, show your research, publish them. The best option is to let them learn they are wrong on their own, because they aren't going to back down even if you have a convincing argument.Shinoshijak (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinoshijak (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I remember those edits on Blond, Red hair, Yellow Emperor. Seems familiar to another blocked user. Beshogur (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I want to say racism is properly partly involved. Hunan201p who was a blocked user doesn't want the other two Gokturk Khagan listed because they looked different and opposite to Simo ho was Sogdian(Iranian) looking. Look at Hunan201p history through Shinoshijak or through others, he always seems to have a bias in promoting Indo-European and Iranian theories and reject every other.Ghizz Archus (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your most recent addition seems to be relevant to the article and does not seem to warrant complete deletion. It names the specific Ashina members who were suspicious of a certain Ashina member's ancestry in addition to the existing content. And frankly the non-English source does not seem the most reliable. It is in Turkish and has no page number. I have re-added a version of it with citation to existing English source. Qiushufang (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

A suspicious IP contacted me and alerted me to this page and Hunan's involvement. I had a run in with Hunan on Genghis Khan two years ago related to the physical appearance of the khans and the inclusion of their portraits. They were blocked for several months in the ensuing reports involving several users. Qiushufang (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry I couldn't be more helpful.82.36.220.78 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with 2). " The Old Book of Tang records that Qilibi Khan was forbidden [ Insert here Shibi Khan and Chuluo Khan ] from assuming the title of Shad, due to his Sogdian-like physical appearance.".82.36.220.78 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Qiu.82.36.220.78 (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Genetics re: Qiushufang

@Qiushufang:

You added CN tags in the genetics section, but that content is already sourced in the inline citation [67].

From Lee (2018):

The Y-chromosomes of the Kök Türk elites, who cremated their dead (Wei  Zheng 2008, Chapter 84, p. 1864), have not been investigated yet. We can only presume their patrilineal lineages by testing the DNA of their direct descendants, who  are, however, difficult to identify. The Zhoushu [the book of the Zhou Dynasty]  (Linghu Defen 2003, Chapter 50, p. 908) informs us that the Ashina, the royal clan of  the Kök Türks, were related to the Qirghiz. If so, the Ashina may have belonged to  the R1a1 lineage like the modern-day Tienshan Qirghiz, who are characterised by the  high frequency of R1a1 (over 60%).16 Haplogroup R1a1, more specifically, its subclade R1a1a1b2 defined by mutation Z93, was carried by the Indo-European pastoralists, who reached the Kazakh steppes, the Tarim Basin, the Altai Mountains region,  the Yenisei River region, and western Mongolia from the Black Sea steppes during  the Bronze Age (Semino et al. 2000, p. 1156).17

If it is the word "commonly" you object to, and I'm assuming that's what this is about, see quotes from the following papers:

From Shao Qing-Weng, et al 2021: [23]

Therefore, the Kyrgyz are an admixed population between the East and the West. Different patterns have been observed in the patrilineal gene pool of the Kyrgyz. Extremely low Y-diversity and the presence of a high-frequency (63% [10], 54.5% [11], or 68.9% [12]) Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1-M17 (a diagnostic Indo-Iranian marker [10]) are striking features of Kyrgyz populations in central Asia.

And from Kim, et al (2010):[24]

We analyzed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), Y-chromosome single nucleotide polymor- phisms (Y-SNP), and autosomal short tandem repeats (STR) of three skeletons found in a 2,000-year-old Xiongnu elite cemetery in Duurlig Nars of Northeast Mongolia. This study is one of the first reports of the detailed genetic analysis of ancient human remains using the three types of genetic markers. The DNA analyses revealed that one subject was an ancient male skeleton with maternal U2e1 and paternal R1a1 haplogroups. This is the first genetic evidence that a male of distinctive Indo-European lineages (R1a1) was present in the Xiongnu of Mongolia. This might indicate an Indo-European migration into Northeast Asia 2,000 years ago.

Also from Lee & Kuang (2017):[25]

haplogroup R1a1 has not been classified into its subclade R1a1a1b1a  (R1a-Z282), which prevails among East Slavs, and subclade R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93),  which spread across Eurasia by the Bronze Age Indo-European (Iranic) pastoralists and is carried by various modern-day Turkic groups.65

By no means an exhaustive list, and they're all secondary in nature, on this specific subject, citing independent sources. - Hunan201p (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You are reading too much into things. I added cn tags because I could not find the citations, usually placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph. Citation [67] is not attached to the content with cn tags. Qiushufang (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: About the physical appearance first and original Ashina clan. While I wouldn't dare call them pure East Asian and probably they were not, is it still possible for them to have look predominant East Asian in the sense of Kazakhs, Kyrgyz or a exact intermediate. Currently the page will make you think it's proven that Ashina are proven to be some pure Indo-Iranian West Eurasian people because they resembled Yenesei Kyrgyz but even now any anthropology or genetic evidence suggest Yenesei Kyrgyz were mixture East-West of varrying degrees. Look at the source by Boris Zhikov where suggest alternative possibly that Ashina were mixed instead.

Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries - Page 24 Boris Zhivkov · 2015

And from Boris Zhikov[26], quoting Stoianov (2004):

"The strong Iranian influence among the Turks of Ashina enables V. Stoianov to pose the question: "what if the Turk(yut)s represented a type of Turkicized Iranians, or what if they, being Turks in the present day meaning of the word, absorbed Iranian elements as well?"²⁷ This also prompts P.Golden to as quite possible that "religious and attendant concepts of royal ideology came to the Turkic peoples from from Iranian or even earlier Indo-Iranian contacts”.28 Or, put another way, “the allegedly mixed Saka-Altaic or possibly Wusun-Altaic origin of the Turks is reflected in their social structure, preserved terminology and even their appearance”.29

What is your opinion ???Ghizz Archus (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Tocharian

@Kansas Bear: can you add the exact quote? I couldn't find. Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"It has been further added by some scholars that the core of the original Ashina ethnicity may have been culturally Indo-Iranian themselves, speaking Sogdian or a variant of Tocharian..." -- Masters of Political Theology: Eric Voegelin and the Mongols, Jonathan Ratcliffe, Eric Voegelin’s Asian Political Thought, page 114. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

" Moreover,the earliest texts of the Türk Empire were written in the Sogdian language beginning in the last quarter of the 6th century: so it is with the Bugut inscription, the oldest known..[..]..Sogdian was the language of the Türk chancellery: when in 568 a Türk embassy travelled to Constantinople" -- Étienne de la Vaissière, Sogdian Traders: A History, 202.

From the Bugut inscription article,"The inscription is dated to 584 CE and was dedicated to Taspar Khagan (reigned 572–581) the fourth Khagan of the Turkic Khaganate. The front, right and left side of the stele has a Sogdian inscription written with Sogdian alphabet."

According to Tumen-il, "Göktürks didn't speak any language other than Turkic".

Yet the First Turkic Khaganate used Sogdian in their inscriptions, coins(Roux, Jean-Paul (2000). Histoire des Turcs (in French). Fayard, page 79.) and chacellery.--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear The last reference you wrote about Ashina is not universally accepted, and never has been. Ashina probably did not know any language other than Turkic. It is not true that Ashina is of Indo-European ancestry or speaks one of these languages. As it is written in the origin of Ashina, each historian puts forward different opinions. As seen in the study of the early Ashina princess in January, the Ashina princess was 97.7 percent Northeast Asian.

If we come to the issue that Sogdian has a place in the state.

As you know, among the Turks, beliefs such as the Church of the East and Manichaeism were also common. This is the result of a cultural exchange. Turks and Sogdians are in cultural contact. In fact, in the first text in the Book of Wei, where the name "Turk" is mentioned, a trade with the west is mentioned.

Sogdian is common only among Sogdian bureaucrats of the state, not among Turks. As I said, there is no general acceptance of your source and there are many contradictions.

Also, your source doesn't even say it's certain. “Maybe,” it says.

Please make sure your perspective is not euro-centristic. Tumen-il (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This is becoming disruptive. This is the second time you have posted this and addressed it to me.(on my talk page, now pinged). --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

So? i forgot to send here and now i edited and sent here. Tumen-il (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

As seen in the study of the early Ashina princess in January, the Ashina princess was 97.7 percent Northeast Asian. doubious assumption based on one single person's dna, whom one of its parents, and one of its grandparents were of Chinese or Xianbei origin. I'm not saying that Ashina were Indo-Europeans though. Beshogur (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

If by Xianbei you mean Rourans, the Rourans did not give their daughters to the Gokturks by treating them like slaves. The Ashina we are talking about is an early Ashina princess. What you're saying is highly unlikely. Tumen-il (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. No idea what caused that! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I know the Sogdian stuff, but does Tocharian means Tocharian language or some Indo-Iranic variant? I thought Tocharians were a separate people, and people confused them with non Indo-Iranic speakers. Beshogur (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Also I think "may have been" is key word. It can be included in body of the article. However for others, it's more appropriate to include them on First Turkic Khaganate I would say. Beshogur (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I am curious as to why Sogdian is being removed from the infobox? The Ashina did not run the First Turkic Khaganate? --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Well of course they do. But speaking is something different imo. These sources do not indicate that Ashina spoke Sogdian, except for first one, which is speculation. Sogdian was used on Göktürk coins, inscriptions, but not sure if this actually means Ashina spoke Sogdian. Similarly Ruanruan (or a proto-Mongolic language) was also seen on two Göktürk inscriptions. I'm not actually in favor to include on infobox, unless the source explicitly states it. Beshogur (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Does the infobox say spoken? It just says "Languages", one would assume "languages" used. To infer spoken would seem to fall into the realm of WP:OR. Why is Jonathan Ratcliffe not considered a reliable source? I could see the removal of Tocharian, but Sogdian was used in diplomacy, numismatics, inscriptions(Bugut inscription). --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing sock edit & WP:OR

This edit was made by Volgabulgari, a sockpuppet. It includes original research(bolded) stating, "This genetic analysis supported the Northeast Asian origin of Ashina tribe and weakened the Indo-Iranian hypothesis.", which is a blatant lie. Said source, Ancient genome of Empress Ashina reveals the Northeast Asian origin of Göktürk Khanate, makes no mention of Indo-Iranian at all. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Thanks for finding out! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)