Talk:Turkic peoples

WARNING

THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS MAY NOT BE OBJECTIVE AND CONTAIN PERSONAL AND INACCURATE INFORMATION

Turkic vs. Turkish

After reading this article on "Turkic" peoples. I agree with all of it but somethings are missing. I have not read the full version prior to it being deleted but it is very well done.

I am an Azerbaijani Turk, and I must say that I do not identify myself as "Turkic" but rather Turkish. I don't really understand why this page is being regarded as a "Turkey" page by some of the people, however I do agree that Turkey is the most advanced Turkic country. All it takes is time, the rest will catch up and join in soon.

I agree with setting up a page to define the many different people of Turkey

To the User H.J., I guess you are confusing Huns with people of Hungary , who call themselves Magyars.

I do not believe that the Huns should be included. The Esthonians , Finns and Huns are Ural Altaic, or rather Finno -Ugric Would you then include the Esthonians and the Finns in your Turkic list ? H.J.

To MichaelTinkler On the other hand , the East Germanic Goth were taken over by the Huns for a while. Together they stormed Rome. Besides the Turkic Turks in Turkey there are now Deutsch-Tuerken German-Turks in Germany. Do you want to add all of them ? H.J.

Not at all. My point, tho', is that to write a sentence like "Turks are the inhabitants of Turkey" is (a) inadquate in what it tells us about the Turks and (b) inaccurate about the inhabitants of Turkey. In fact, the entry "turks" is not much more useful than "germans" or "americans". I hope you're beginning to realize that I do not find the names of ethnicities or nations particularly useful in and of themselves.

Michael Tinkler, I guess you are 66 ? . Go ahaed and put all the info in you can find. I only started the Turk page, because it fitted in the text somewhere else. H.J.

66? Oh - yes, I haven't logged in from this computer, which loses my preferences every time I shut down for the night. Let me point out that not all the links people create in articles actually deserve to be articles themselves. --MichaelTinkler

portion about Turks deleted

During the redirecting process, a major and substantial portion of this article has been deleted without stating any specific reasons. If this portion was not carried to any other article (and this should have been mentioned, as well), I think this is a good example of vandalism User:ErdemTuzun.

It isn't. If you mean the section on Turkish identification and population groups in the Republic of Turkey, I was looking for a more appropriate place for it: having put most of the former Turks into the broad Turkic peoples, I think the Turkey discussion belongs under "people(s) of Turkey" or "Turkish people" - the more specific definitions of "Turks" - with additional links therefrom. We so far have the subpage Turkey/People, which looks like the best place for now for the discussion of groups; the identification issue really belongs under a distinct "Turkish people" article, though. User:David Parker

I surely agree with you. However, I can't find these sections anywhere in Wikipedia and they seem to be deleted. Although I am the author of most of these sections, I don't have the copies of these paragraphs. These parts would better be carried to the sections you have mentioned and this is what I am criticising. I think detailed list of people living in Turkey can be added to Turkey/People and the identification issue is a debateful topic and I suggest that it should be added to the Talk section of Turkey/People. If these parts are not in Wikipedia anymore and if you don't have them I will try to rewrite them User:ErdemTuzun.

I've moved it all to Talk:Turkey/People, so you can add bits to the Turkey/People article as appropriate. User:David Parker

map

A map showing Turkic areas would be helpful...

This article is a mess

And what a gigantic mess it is. people groups, languages, ancient history, turkish poetry all happily (or not so) mixed together. I think this article contains the foundations of two or three different ones and this should be done asap. Refdoc 22:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deleted text (maybe pretty to a Turkish ear but not to mine - and not part of an encyclopedia...) ;-) : "Oh race of Turks, children of iron and fire, founders of a thousand homelands, wearers of a thousand crowns. If the sky above did not collapse and the earth did not give way, oh noble race, who would be able to destroy your nation and institutions..." Refdoc 22:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Further deleted text - description of azerbeyjani Turks - this is debated in other articles : They are the descendants of various bodies of Turks, but primaraly the Oghuz Turks who migrated in mass numbers to the region in the 10th and 11th centuries. Refdoc 22:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have moved a chunk into a new article Turkish states and empires and put a link in the bottom of this article Refdoc 22:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The following is largely POV without evidence supplied, but attacking other interpretations = Ancient Origins =It is believed that the Turks are the natives of central Asia, in an area which is between the Ural and Altay mountains. Some historians claim that the Turks originated in western Asia, and that throughout ancient history migrated to central Asia, while some believe that infact migration to western Asia and interactions in various parts of the world by Turkic peoples in ancient times (before the advent of the Huns) occurred via central Asia.
Comparisons to the ancient language of the Sumerians (labeled as an Ural-Altaic language by most historians) to modern Turkish languages confirms many common words and religious terms. Some state that the most ancient of Turks were the Sumerians, who originated east of the Caspian Sea in Central Asia but who established a civilization in present-day southern Iraq. The Sumerian language had many words that are appearant in other modern Ural-Altaic languages such as Hungarian and Mongolian.
The ancient roots of the Turks have been diminished by some historians who seek to clarify an "Indo-European" or "Aryan" presence in parts of Asia and Europe before the period of the Huns. Thus, Turkish historians as well as some western historians who have based their researches on clear facts rather than "guesses" have concluded that after the Sumerians up until the time of the Huns, the Turks were the people who became known as Scythians, Massagetae, Alans, Cimmerians and Sarmats, whom have been labeled as "Iranian" or "unidentified" peoples ewithout any vital linguistic or anthropological facts. Refdoc 23:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And another bit cut and pasted for further use - if any - Islamic Period - Turkish soldiers in the army of the Abbasid caliphs emerged as de facto rulers of most of the Muslim Middle East (except Syria and Egypt), particularly after the 10th century. Oghuz and other tribes captured and dominated various countries under the leadership of the Seljuk dynasty and eventually captured the territories of the Abbasid dynasty and the Byzantine Empire.
Meanwhile, Kirgyz and Uygurs were struggling with each other and with the mighty Chinese Empire. Kirghiz people finally settled in the region that is now referred to as Kyrgyzstan. Tatar peoples conquered Volga Bulgars in what is today southern Russia following the westward sweep of the Mongols under Genghis Khan in the 13th century. Bulgars was named tatars by Russians mistakally. Native Tatars lives only in Asia, European Tatars factically are Bulgars. (Bulgars came to Europe in 7-8th century). Everywhere, Turkish groups mixed to some extent with other local populations.
As the Seljuks declined after the Mongol invasion, the Ottoman Empire emerged as a new important Turkish state which came to dominate not only the Middle East, but also southeastern Europe and parts of southwestern Russia and northern Africa. Meanwhile, other Turkic groups founded dynasties in Iran (Safavids) and northern India (the Mughal Empire).
The Ottoman Empire grew weaker in the face of repeated wars with Russia and Austria and the emergence of nationalist movements in the Balkans, and finally gave way after World War I to the present-day republic of Turkey. Refdoc 23:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clear Out

I have done a big clear out removing doublets, shifting stuff onto relevant existing pages added links and put some stuff which I could not use in the paragraphes above. The remainder is still largely POV, and should continue to carry the disputed tag - and I guess there are many of you who would want to dispute my editing :-) feel free to change again Refdoc 00:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Turkic vs Turkish

I have removed the following text: It is noteworthy to mention that the term "Turkic" did not exist before the Stalinist era. Today, the term "Turkish" is most commonly associated with the Turks of Turkey and eastern Europe, while before the establishment of the Soviet Union, "Turkish" meant all "Turkic" peoples of the world. In the Turkish languages, there is no distinction between Turkish/Turkic. When referring to the different dialects of the Turks, the term Turkish is used (for example the language of the Azerbaijanis is Azerbaijani-Turkish and the language of the Uygurs is Uygur-Turkish.)

Turkic is the term used by English speaking linguistics to classify a group of languages discussed in this article. Whether or not people feel they not "Turkic" is in this respect relatively irrelevant. I do not feel "indo-european" and yet my language is classified in this way. I would lik eto reserve the Term "Turkish" for whatever political ambitions/cultural affinities/etc there are, but think we should insist on using clear and recognised language for this article. WRT to Stalin note above - this is a bit disingenious as we speak/write English here rather than Russian. Refdoc 08:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re-used the stuff, so don't worry. Refdoc 09:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Characteristics

I am struggling with this one - anyone else any ideas ? Refdoc 10:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merger roozbeh's and refdoc's version

I like the History bit you did , but do not agree with the zapping of the ethnical divisions - firstly this removed a lot of minor Turk peoples which are otherwise poorly linked into teh great big thing, secondly I see really no better place for this information than here. I know that a fair amount of that particular information is also in Turkic languages but I think there is a place here, particularly if we want to have racial, ethnic and linguistic matters somewhat separate to avoid further bouts of pan-turkism or other chauvisims

Also I was abit unhappy with teh remaining sectiosn as the text was quite jumbled up and had lost a lot of the internal logic.

So in summary I have used my text as the base line and inserted your historical section, took your internal link section as the better alternative and used your overall lay-out for better orientation. I hope this is a useful way of looking at it.

One small note though - Northern Cyprus is miniscule in comparison to Iran and its Turkic people - why did you move iran from the "major" to the "additional" sentence in "geographical distribution" ? Refdoc 12:16, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was a first edit, and I was not in full comprehension of your work.

The history bit was not mine, it was a section that the anonymous editors had removed. I simply re-introduced it.
I'm very much concerned about the validity of the ethnic branches. To me, this is clearly a minority view of someone who wanted to summarize something that cannot be summarizedd. That was the reason I removed it. As long as it's there without a citable source, there will be a factual dispute. I redid the part, mentionin the whole lot (please recheck and see if I have missed any), but not the exact divisions. I believe the geographical details belong in the individual articles about the different people. There were also some minor ones that I intentionally removed, because we had no articles on them, and they may be just claims. Let whoever writes an article on them come and include them here in the list after he wrote an article.
My moving things were not intentional. I was not seeing the logic then. I was thinking something like "which are the countries who have majority of Turkic people?"
I also removed the relation between the pan-Turkism and Persian Chauvinism. The wording imposed that the pan-Turkists considered pan-Turkism to be something like Persian Chauvinism, while they clearly don't. They seem to like the Arab World idea, but not the Greater Persia idea.

I hope you like the article in the current shape. If you don't, go and edit it.

roozbeh 15:02, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I do like it. I have added why the classification is so difficult and often doubtful. Refdoc 15:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Conclusion

So, this was a bit of a nightmare of an edit. All and everything mentiond as "cut" in the above paragraphes, is either back in the article or moved to other relevant articles' talk pages. I have tried to accommodate all different view points and tried to come to NPOV on all significant matters. This has required some editing and subscribers of pan-this or pan-that might well be unhappy. But please do not do a simple revert but bring your point to the talk pages. There has been a spat of revert wars over various pages in the recent past and I think this should be avoided. If possible. And if you all agree (or if I keep talking to myself) I will remove the dispute notice in 48 hrs. Refdoc 13:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Roozbeh's edit - I agree with the new edit largely. I still think it is sad that some of the geographical information has gone lost and I think it should be re-inserted in some form. Otherwise this is a barely comprehensible list of odd and never heard names for most readers. Also a small number of teh groups mentioned do not yet have an article and i think what was there should be enough to form some stubs. Refdoc 14:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe the geographic information is not factually accurate, and that's why I removed it. I will put them back at my expense (!) if one could find a reasonable source for them (please note that they were added by anonymous contributors who refused to talk about details). As for the stubs, why not add them back when the articles got created? This is specially important since their existance may be disputed. roozbeh 15:07, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I cut the subsection "Historical Turkic peoples include:" as all but two (Avars and Kipchaks) were already mentioned in the historical section above. I believe it would be better if for these two peoples eitehr sentence was found in teh historical section (if tehy are of importance - I have no clue) or they get silently dropped. The section was a bit incongruous in that particular place. Refdoc 16:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The ancient roots of the Turks have been diminished by some historians who seek to clarify an "Indo-European" or "Aryan" presence in parts of Asia and Europe before the period of the Huns. Thus, Turkish historians as well as some western historians who have based their researches on clear facts rather than "guesses" have concluded that after the Sumerians up until the time of the Huns, the Turks were the people who became known as Scythians, Massagetae, Alans, Cimmerians and Sarmats, whom have been labeled as "Iranian" or "unidentified" peoples ewithout any vital linguistic or anthropological facts.

u got source for this?

________

i'm under the impression that at least in a modern context, the term "turkish" applies only to one turkic ethnic group (speaking the language called "turkish"), while turkic peoples in general are said to speak various turkic languages. someone please point out if i don't know something here.

Pan-Turkism Article is Not Nutral

I find the discussion of Pan-Turkism to a great extent to be based on oppinion and conjecture. I am not happy with the tone, it is not nutral; this article is pro-turk unification. It is also badly written and repeatedly mis-spelled. Am am not fully informed on most issues here and so hav'nt deleated anything, but somthing has to be sorted out.

For Example: "if these republics unites with Turkey it will make a strong united power against the emperialistic wills of Communist China. In the other hand Russia will not like idea and unification movement due to high level Turkic population in his teritories and in a panicy way will attempt for prevention. They very well know entire Siberia is a Turkic land accupied by brutal Russians in 19th century." is not nutral.

"Iran as a negative cancer tumor in the region" is offensive.

"If middle east were a united Arab country with enough surplus and economical growth we should never see these terrorist movements. Ofcourse still power computition would continue but in a much more friendly manner." Is conjecture and "friendy manner" (!) is just ridiculous.

Please, someone who knows more about pan-turkism than me, sort this out.

Chinese language link

I have found out that the Chinese language link doesn't actually link to an equivalent page on the ZH site, but to a page about the Göktürks. However I cannot read Chinese and am unable to ascertain whether the ZH site has a page about Turkic peoples. If, by any chance, someone here could find out, I feel it's worth fixing. I have left things as-is for now. F. Delpierre 16:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Sumerian" connection

I notice the tell-tale passive of non-attribution in the following: "Comparisons of the ancient Sumerian language with modern Turkic languages (labeled as Ural-Altaic) have allegedly shown some common vocabulary. Based on these comparisons, it is claimed that the Sumerians were the most ancient documented Turkic people," Can we get some sources and more detail, so that the reader may assess on what grounds this unusual assertion lies? --Wetman 18:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second that! Codex Sinaiticus 02:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to Codex sinaiticus

Hello, i placed the POV and the factual accuracy tag because from reading the article , it would seem that you are pushing a pro-islamic, pro-turkish - from turkey - (as opposed to turkic) point of view that includes factual fallacies. Remember that turkic is a linguistic term. It's very similar to stating that all people who speak the spanish language (filipinos, latin americans, people from spain, some people in africa) belong to one race and ethnic group when that is not the case. Or that the afro-caribeans and africans who speak french share a similar ethnic and racial heritage as people from France and Quebec. Many people in their history have adopted languages out of convenience or through conquest and it does not suggest a common ancestry. however, it would seem that you are suggesting that all turkic peoples possess the same ancestry and that the Turkish people in turkey are at the forefront of that ancestry. However, I wanted to at least discuss with you your sources for the history of turkic peoples as most historians and people who have written about turkic peoples do not seem to share to share your ideas. Further, most historians approach the turkic people from a linguistic history and not an ethnic and racial history that you seem to be approaching it from. Please elaborate your sources for this history as I have never read this history that you have written in any neutral textbook. Further, the history that you have written is pretty non-neutral and has factual exagerrations and errors. I haven't reverted it because I did not want to start an edit war although on your discussion page other people would seem to have taken offense at some of your previous changes to their articles. Kennethtennyson 05:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ken, please look at the Revision history again.. Those aren't my additions to this page, in fact all I did was throw out a couple of the more fringey sentences, that were added today by someone else... Codex Sinaiticus 07:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to reiterate yet again that I am NOT the anonymous person who added all of the pov stuff to the article. In fact, I had just spent all day on the 30th July cleaning the article up to an acceptable "encyclopedic" standard, wikifying, etc, then we got this dump a few days later... I agree with you whle-heartedly that the additions are full of blatant pov and non-factual. I suggest a wholesale revision to my last version of the 30th first of all, then from there we might work on sticking in any little bits and pieces of the "new" info that might be fruitful, if there are any... For example, the earlier version had the number of Turkic speaking peoples at 150 million, but now it has become 300 million... So perhaps we could include some statemen to the effect that "some estimates run as high as 300 million", or some such...? Obviously, all the stuff about Turkic peoples being "the largest nation" (sic) in Islam, etc., will have to be tossed, at least, until such time as there is any body in the entire world that recognises such a "nation"... Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 12:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turks and North American Tribes

Many turkish historians and anthropologist belive that North American tribes are our cloase cousins. As far as I know, there is no complete comperision of Turkish and NA tribe languages, but is sounds very familiar to Turkish linguist. Shaman culture and ways look very similar to me. For example, shaman turks shaved their head but a tail before going to a battle, to make it easier for the enemy to cut their head off, when they fall. This would make it easier to for their soul to reach the great steps of Teng Tengri ( Sky God ) and they would ride together with their fathers and grands. You would remember that Native American "skinning" has the same purpose , warriors do shave their hair but a tail, and hope to meet their anchestors at great plains of Manitu. An enemy who comitted suicide is not worth the respect , like in Gn.Castors case. Also, another good lead is the great similarity in carpets. Tents is another similarity. Yakut Turks should be the most similar ones. The missing things are the horses and iron, which can be explained with being crossing.

Native American tribes and languages are far from homogenous. Please keep this in mind before making any sweeping generalisations. Codex Sinaiticus 15:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tungusic speakers

This article states that the Tungusic speakers are a branch of Turkic people. I don't believe this is correct, either racially or linguistically. The Tungusic people are generally similar racially to Mongolians (think of the Manchus, for instance) and linguistically they are (if you accept the hypothesis of an Altaic language family) a separate branch of Altaic. Altaic is typically broken down into three branches: Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic. Tungusic is no more a branch of Turkic than Mongolian is.

The above comment is only one of the many flaws I have found in this article. This entry looks as though it was written by some sort of "Turkish advocate", not by an objective and disinterested author. The entire article is of poor quality and needs to be completely restructured and rewritten.

The issues of race, language and history are more difficult to sort out with Turkic speakers than with other ethnic groups in Eurasia, partly because there are so few early written sources concerning them and because Turkic peoples today are spread over such a large area. Whoever might rewrite this article needs to spend some time seriously studying these issues and avoid being caught in the hoopla of nationalistic or fringe theories. Sources need to be referenced thoroughly and the sources themselves need to be scrutinized for quality. Respected, peer-reviewed linguistic and genetic journals might be a good place to start along with trying to identify some authoritative historical sources on Turkic speakers. Finally, there is a probably a great deal that simply cannot be known with certainly about Turkic origins and early history. In those instances, leading theories regarding the subject matter should be discussed without bias or favoritism.

Unsigned by 24.113.86.77 on 12 June 2005

Huns and Hungarians as Turkic People

I have read much on the Huns and Hungarians. Based on the following published peer reviewed DNA studies I will add the Huns and Hungarians(Magyars) to the list of Turkic peoples.

"Probable ancestors of Hungarian ethnic groups: an admixture analysis" C. R. GUGLIELMINO1, A. DE SILVESTRI2 and J. BERES

MtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms in Hungary: inferences from the palaeolithic, neolithic and Uralic influences on the modern Hungarian gene pool

The first paper notes that the living Hungarians have heavy influence from the Slavs and Germans. The conclusion that both give is that the Magyars were mostly of Cenral Asain Mongol-Turkic origin.

The language debate is irrelvant to this article as language and ancestry do not have to be related and many times they are not [as the second citation attest to]. For example you can find Arabic spoken by one billion people who are not Arabs or related to Arabs. According to this research the Hungarians would be people of mongol of turkic origin who some how speak a uralic language. :-/ --Hfarmer 00:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thsi article is a total mess!

This article is a mess! It'S not only partially wrong, but it also reflects pan-turkist thoughts and views. It's neither neutral nor scietifically correct. For example, NON-TURKIC peoples like Cimmerians and Sythians are claimed Turks - something that has ALWAYS been rejected by schollars and experts.

This article needs:

a) to be cleaned up
b) to be based on scientific works and not some pan-turkist garbage

Some pov cleanup is needed, but the article is quoting someone else who equated Cimmerians and Ishkuz etc. with Turks (Oghuz)... Plenty of sources equating Ishkuz and Oghuz, both classical and modern sources, can be found, and these have to be admitted as sources, not hidden. The exact affinities of Cimmerians et al. are a dispute and a question mark -- please do not bestow the term "Scholars and experts" on only ONE side of the dispute; that is the definition of POV. If possible, giving both sides is preferable. (And by the way, I'm no Pan-Turk, nor even a Turk.) Codex Sinaiticus 15:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

whoever says this page is a mass he is wrong. it is very good of you to prepare this page. I am a TURK and I'm proud of this every time. Turks should be introduced correctly. and I think this is not so.

Nomenclature section

A lot of the stuff (such as the Alp er Tunga paragraph) in this section seems irrelevant. The etymology of the word "Turk" given in the dictionaries I searched (1, 2, 3) is the following:

Middle English, from Old French Turc, from Turkish Türk, from Old Turkic türk, strong.

The Persian term "Turanian" may have an etymological connection to the word "Turk," but the Turanians known to Zarathustra were in all prabability Scythians or a related tribe, who spoke an Iranian language, as the histrical Turks are only known to have reached that far west in 6th century AD (before this they seem to have lived near the western borders of China). The Persians used the term "Turanian" to refer to Central Asian nomads in general, not necessarily Turkic peoples in particular.--Rob117 17:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, you have read Firdavsi. Hovewer, I disagree with you at one critical point which "Turanian" doesn't refer to Turks. Because, most of the historians are agree that " Turanian " was used to refer Turkic tribes.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 21:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source?

The origin of the name of Turk is cloudy. No one make sure about the source of a word that is used for thousand years. All is only conjecture. It's sertain that it was pronounced as türük formerly; with this form, it's clear that this name has suffix (tür-"ük"). "Tür" may be origin of the verb türe-. Maybe "Törek" (töre-k)? Thise are more possible I think. In some languages, turk still means strong, dont know the reason... So maybe it changed meaning, started to mean Strong, than again changed meaning, referred Turks?!

Genetic Origins of Modern Turks

No one is accusing the Turks of being Armenians - although clearly many Turkish have some degree of Armenian blood. I am happy to discuss DNA, but please stop deleting other people's work before talking about. You have now reverted for the fourth time today. Please do not do that again. Please explain your objection--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)s. Lao Wai 18:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TuzsuzDeliBekir has violated the 3 revert rule. Some admin needs to hear about this. --Khoikhoi 18:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there is no such link in another ethnic pages, but in this page. Secondly, I want you to show enough number of research about DNA. According to my expriences, experts don't compare specific DNAs like Turks vs Armenians. Without a doubt, there is no pure blood, but saying .... percent of DNA comes from Greeks, ... percent of DNA comes from Armenians is such a debate that no one like to hear. Writer and editors must have respect for sensitiveness of ethnic groups. Before editing or reverting they should be quite sure about their proff. If we come back to apperance, it is mostly up to environment. For ins. some experts claim that American Indians has Turkic blood. If we go forward with this statement, they definetely dont seem like neither an Asian, nor Turkish. Consequently, before being quite sure about it, please delete the statement and go to talk page for futher discussion.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Khoikhoi alerted me to this discussion. After looking at the problem, though, I have to say that TuzsuzDeliBekir has some good points. Most other "ethnic" articles don't have this kind of lengthy "physical description" blather... Do we really need it here? And as for "DNA evidence", ya know, you can usually tell people who put their stock in DNA, its written all over their face... Truth is, people mix with other peoples in all kinds of ways, and no one is "homogenous" (whatever that would be). Ever seen a genealogical chart? Once you go back a few centuries, the typical person's ancestors lived in all kinds of different countries. Also, I don't think our friend here is trying to deny Turkic origins. Usually, the problem is revisionists trying to downplay those origins. But in this case, nothing needs to be said about "physical appearances" of what is today so diverse a group, and nothing, or perhaps only a very brief mention, should be given to "DNA" theories, that are all flawed, as they attempt to generalize entire modern day populations that are not homogenous. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But I still defend that this page doesnt need to have a ' physical apperance ' link. Again thank you for your comment.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think it is important to mention what the Turkic peoples look like. Especially because of the fact that there is so much propaganda on this subject. --Khoikhoi 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my answer to Khoii ( reverted 4 times )

Khoii, you claim is definetely personal. This attempt is not your first. I dont have time for your childish action. I dont play with the rules. You hate Turks, I have searched your contribution, and you are maintaing such a silly revert war aganist Turks and any link which relates with it. I must ask you to stop. Lastly, this talk is not to blame someone. ıf you have a praoblem with me, write it to my talk. link title

I have just reverted my answer. You have accused me above. That's why, this answer definitely belogns to here.

--TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

How about a compromise explaining some of the problems and simply making it a shorter section rather than a long and somewhat generalized rendition? The Turkic peoples aren't homogenous and the genetic distance between the western Turks and the Turks in Central Asia does seem to support different origins for the two. Mixed populations still tend to genetically cluster to all or most of their immediate neighbors and that's possibly something that does need to be pointed out. In addition, most encyclopedias do mention the different types of Turks so perhaps this section isn't completely out of line. Tombseye 00:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the languages are practically intelligible with one another; I don't think anyone seriously holds for "separate origins" except the most determined of historical revisionists... You're on the right track when you say populations tend to take after their neighbours, though... Note, that is not at all the same as saying "separate origins"... If we're talking about a "linguistic group", clearly they all came from the same origins, ie some tribe somewhere speaking the same language at some point in time... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Common linguistic origin doesn't equate to common ancestry. This is illustrated in the case of the Slavs. One the Bulgarians are a slavicised people of Turkic origin (the Bulgars). Nevertheless, they are counted as Slavs, as are the ethnic Macedonians, who claim descent from the Ancient Macedonians (who were presumably of Illyrian, Thracian or Greek origin). The only link we need here is the linguistic one. We have it! Britannica mentions the Turkish language having links with the other languages [1], as does the Columbia Encyclopaedia [2]. Latinus 00:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance ! Go to links which you gave in your comment. If they have an appearance section, alert us to take a look. All languages have links with each other. Pasha, yoghurt, and so on are Turkish words. They are in the English dictionary too. Ottoman language was a combination of Turkish, Arabic and Persian. After republic, Turkish government changed it alphabet. ( from Arabic to Latin ) and created an organization for the purpose of researches on Turkish languages. Afterwards, they announced theory of Turkish, all documents are written in Turkish and French.