Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:12, 23 April 2013

Hey, Where is the pre- Gokturk states? Huns are huge gap for the box.--5.47.132.218 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Scyths, Huns and Avars

Where are Scyths, Huns and Avars? Scyth, Xiongnu, Hunnic, Hepthalite and Avar are missing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMr KnG (talk • contribs) 18:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Scyths, Xiongnu and Hunnic empires

Britannica write that Scythian member of a nomadic people originally of Iranian stock. Xiongnu and Hunnic empires were not a Turkic empire. See Xiongnu and Huns articles. --Qara Khan 15:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter what he says biased Britannica and biased Misplaced Pages articles. Scyths were a Turkic people. If the Hun Empires, the Turkic states. All scientific documents to prove this. But Western propagandists can say otherwise, this is perfectly normal. 78.160.194.131 (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Turkic empires which used Persian Culture

Source ? this summary is my mistake. Yes, most population of Ghaznavid, Kilji etc. empires were non-Turkic also official language of the empires were Persian but it does not means these empires were non-Turkic. Just Turks used and improved Persian culture. Different excamples:

1. Most population of the Yuan Dynasty were Han Chinese and official language of the dynasty was Chinese but Yuan emperors were Mongol

2. Most population of the Ayyubid Dynasty were Arabs and official language of the dynasty was Arabic but Ayyubid rulers were Kurdish

3. Most population of the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum were Turk, Greek and Armenian but official language of the sultanate was Persian

4. Offical language of France was Latin until 1539 (See Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts)

5. Offical language of England was Norman-French until 14th century (Latin was used in writing.)

I can write many excamples but I think these is enough. ---Qara Khan 18:09, March 6 2013 (UTC)

I was already source presented. You said non-Turkic and improved Persian culture states about all historians say Turkic state. And no, means that they were Turkic. None improved Persian Culture, vice versa improved Turkic Culture. For example Timurid improved Turkic culture, but even Timurid improved Persain Culture sayed. You are Turkic states Persian state say know, all Turkic states was not Turkic state a description be doing their utmost to make. Also I say this to states gave an examples; Ayyubid rulers were Turk, Azerbaijani Turks and official language of Ayyubid was Arabic, but language of dynasty and people (at least a part) was Turkic. The official language of Seljuq was Persian, but language of dynasty and people was Turkic. So obvious propaganda is done. 78.160.106.243 (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I see no consensus for any changes to be done to the template. Continued reverts by this IP will garner the attention of an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

IP78(ie.EMr KnG) edits are pushing a singular theory. Whereas for example, Xiongnu lists multiple theories as to their origins. This is typical nationalistic nonsense, to push one singular POV, giving undue weight to one theory. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A Misplaced Pages page not shown as the source. And just not a theory. All historians agree that the Huns were Turk. But English Misplaced Pages is runs contrary to all scientific findings. 78.160.123.145 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your personal opinion means nothing here and your nationalistic POV is original research. Xiongnu origins has multiple references that you don't like. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not only my personal opinion. At the same time all historians opinion. 85.99.73.235 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for the content dispute

OK. I've verified template revision history and the endless edit war/reverting started by IP users from the beginning up until now. So please all editors write their opinions about these stuffs:

Non-Turkic or multiple theories-based dynasties/empires such as

• Hephthalite Empire
• Hunnic Empire
• Scythians
• Xiongnu

Solution: Obviously do not add them again. Clearly theses additions are POV-pushing and wrong. They are against Misplaced Pages policies and lead to the further disruptive/non-constructive edits. Read WP:SOAP and WP:NOT.

Turko-Persians such as

• Ghaznavids
• Seljuqs
• Khwarazmian dynasty
• Sultanate of Rum

Solution: I don't think adding of them is a problem. They are related to both Turkic peoples (rulers) and Persian people (culture and language). It's better to add more details about them to the template (good for readers and other editors, optional).

Summary: Only add/remove articles/wikilinks with clear status and well-sourced content. Template content must match with the content of those articles. Every massive removal and controversial addition should be discussed on the talk page and reach consensus. Zheek (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Scythians and Huns were Turk is a not thesis. All historians agree Huns were Turk. In the case of Scythians were Turk, most historians agree. As to this Turko-Persian; All you wrotes non Turko-Persian, were direct Turk. Weren't in Persian culture and language. Take it all in order. Selcuq rulers were Turk, culture were Turkic culture, the majority of people Turk, official language was Persian but language of rulers and people was Turkic. Khwarazmian ruler were Turk, culture were Turkic culture, the majority of people Turk, official language was Turkic and Persian, and language of rulers and people was Turkic. Ghaznavid rulers were Turk, culture were Turkic culture, the majority of people Turk, official language was Persian but language of rulers and people was Turkic. Also firs be edit template, later on be edit article. 95.5.28.65 (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. All historians? These are just your personal claims and not what experts say. We use scholary and reliable sources. Your claims are just your POV. You are not familiar with this topic and Misplaced Pages policies. Even you don't know anything about these dynasties/people and just want to Turkify them. Read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Your edits are fringe and unreliable content. If you continue to remove sourced texts/reliable sources and insert your POVs, You will be blocked (even if you use multiple IPs). Your comments and other editor's comments are here. So it's better for you to respect other editors and try to be a collaborative editor. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, war zone, forum, or personal blog. Me and many other editors don't care if a specific dynasty was Turkic, Persian, Arab, Mongol, Japanese, Chinese, European, or etc. Only reliable and scholary source/citation does matter not anything on the web or other medias.

You should learn many things about Misplaced Pages. Read WP:HERE and specially the section WP:NOTHERE. All of your sources/claims are not reliable and acceptable. Anyway, If you don't agree with me and other editors, go and ask about your sources on here: WP:RSN. If any of your sources is accepted as reliable, you can add them to the articles but DO NOT try to do such things like: removing other sources, massive blanking, inserting POV, replacing reliable sources/sourced content with unreliable materials/POVs, edit warring, and etc.

Everything is clear and instead of writing forum-like comments, provide your sources on here or WP:RSN. Also it's better to use "your" Misplaced Pages account. This section is obvious enough. After expiration of the article protection, The important thing is your talks on here. As you see your edits are reverted on this revision, So if you continue edit warring and reverting without reaching consensus on here, All of your edits will be reported to the admins and related admins' noticeboards. Zheek (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Zheek. Hephthalite Empire,Huns, Scythians and Xiongnu have numerous theories considering their origins. Their addition to the Template gives undue weight to one theory. The IPs silly claims of all historians is clearly proven false by my link to Xiongnu article.

The second part concerning Turko-Persian needs clarification.

Turko-Persian is a culture not an ethnicity. The dynasties listed in conjunction are Turkic/Turkish ethnically, but were Persianate(ie.Turko-Persian) in culture. This is a documented fact. No amount of ignorance, grandiose statements of "all historians" or well wishing will change that.

Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Khwarazmian dynasty and Sultanate of Rum are all ethnic Turks. This is supported by references and there are no other theories as to their ethnic origins. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Also all of these articles are well-sourced and every editor can verify them. Usually Origin section or lead section explains everything (scholary and experts' views). Zheek (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Zheek, I know history better than you, you can be sure. I very know the rules of Misplaced Pages. And Already I used scholarly and reliable sources. Important is what experts say, no matter say editors.

Kansas Bear, You talked like know a lot, but you don't know nothing. You told me No amount of ignorance, grandiose statements of "all historians" or well wishing will change that., but yourself told This is a documented fact. 85.99.73.235 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing said by the IP hopping editor that refutes anything I have said. As for, "I know history better than you, you can be sure..... And Already I used scholarly and reliable sources. Important is what experts say, no matter say editors". Then you know what cherry picking information is. Since you are clearly ignoring information that states what you do not want to read and simply using information you want. This is cherry picking and giving undue weight to a singular POV. Therefore, since you said, "I very know the rules of Misplaced Pages", then you know your attempt to push this singular POV is a violation of neutral point of view. I see no evidence submitted by the IP that refutes the sourced information in the, Hephthalite Empire,Huns, Scythians and Xiongnu articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing you're saying makes no sense. You know it, but not to suit one's interests. 85.99.73.235 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Zheek, unless the IP hopping editor presents some viable reason(s) by tomorrow(24th), we should call consensus and move on. So far the IP editor(ie. EMr KnG) has presented nothing but outlandish claims of "all historians"(which is refuted by the references in the articles in question) and now nonsensical English. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, Kansas Bear. We've waited for his/her reasons, but nothing happened. I will refer to this consensus in the future "IF" edit war/same edits happens. Page protection will expire on 31 March. I think every necessary thing is discussed on here. Every editor and admins can verify those articles and compare them with IPs' edits. Zheek (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I think the result of this consensus section/thread is obvious and clear. IP-hopper did not provide any evidence/reason or RS materials to reject our reasons (me and Kansas Bear), so the future edits/contributions will be based on this consensus and provided solutions. Zheek (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 March 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Kyrgyz kaganat 840-924

96.55.168.51 (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Request

Surprised to see the Timurid and Mughal dynasties are not listed here. Clearly there is no argument/ debate about these (obviously Turkic with slight Mongol pretensions, heavily Persianised and based in (and married to) Afghanistan and India. Could you kindly add these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.129.32 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to {{History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century}}. It is noted for the record that the template should be edited to reflect the new title. —Darkwind (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century → Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century – "Turks" is not synonymous with Turkic, and the scope of this template covers Turkic history, not History of Turkey. Turk primarily refers to "a native or inhabitant of Turkey, or a person of Turkish descent" (Oxford Dictionaries) (i.e., Turkish people). While historical usage of Turk refers to "member of any of the ancient central Asian peoples who spoke Turkic languages..." , this is not the primary or only definition. When words have more than one meaning, Misplaced Pages should be specific to avoid confusion and to be more correct. Cavann (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Turk

1. a native or inhabitant of Turkey, or a person of Turkish descent.

2. historical a member of any of the ancient central Asian peoples who spoke Turkic languages, including the Seljuks and Ottomans.

Cavann, you have the logic problem. Qara khan 07:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you not read? "When words have more than one meaning, Misplaced Pages should be specific to avoid confusion and to be more correct." This template is confusing, given the template Template:Turks. This is not their history. This is about Turkic peoples, not Turkish people. Cavann (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Turkic is a name invented by the lisguists to differentiate the Turks of the World and the Turks of Turkey. Nevertheless, the original form is Turk as can be seen in the oldest written documents namely Khöshöö Tsaidam inscriptions. There is no reason to replace the original name with the invented one. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support; "Turkic" is a more neutral and less ambiguous label, which is also used by a variety of impeccably reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. All Turks are Turkic, not all Turkic peoples are Turks. As the template seems to be used for peoples who aren't Turks, but are Turkic, the proposed move makes perfect sense. Jeppiz (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Cavann, Bobrayner, and Jeppiz. Per sources and articles of this template, it's a better and more relevant name for this template. Also the term "Turk" maybe considered as same as "Turkish" by some readers or editors. "Turkic" is more acceptable for this template. Matches with linked articles and those Turkic topics. Zheek (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Turk and Turkish isn't the same. Turk is ethnicity (Azerbaijani turks, Turkey turks, Iraqi turks, all turks .) but Turkish is nationality (a person from Turkey). Qara khan 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Turkish is also an ethnicity:

From CIA The World Factbook: Ethnic groups in Turkey, "Turkish 70-75%, Kurdish 18%, other minorities 7-12% (2008 est.)"

Also: Turkish, adj. and n.: "a. Of, pertaining or belonging to the Turks or to Turkey; commonly (now Hist.) = Ottoman." (Oxford English Dictionary) Cavann (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I recognise Qara khan's objection to "Turkish", but this proposed move doesn't involve the word "Turkish". "Turkic" isn't the same. It is, however, used in a similar way to Qara khan's examples of how "Turk" is used. Alas, "Turk" is ambiguous - it is more frequently used in the modern nationalist sense - and the move would fix that ambiguity. bobrayner (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Constitution of Turkey

MADDE 66- Türk Devletine vatandaşlık bağı ile bağlı olan herkes Türktür.

ARTICLE 66- Everyone bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship is a Turkish.

Result: Turk and Turkish aren't the same. Qara Khan 19:58, 09 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually that constitution article is using the word "Turk." In any case, legal vs. ethnic definitions needs to be discussed in Turkish people article and it is, actually, included. See also Germans, where legal and ethnic definitions may not always be in line.

The correct translation, which undermines your argument, is here: Turkish nationality law Cavann (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The above translation is correct. Please don't speak a lie. Qara Khan 15:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Turkish/Turk are the same thing (i.e., "Türk") in Turkish when it comes to people. Again, the correct translation is in Turkish nationality law. Cavann (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.