This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Babakexorramdin (talk | contribs) at 09:08, 28 September 2007 (→Map of Turkic-speaking countries and autonomous areas). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:08, 28 September 2007 by Babakexorramdin (talk | contribs) (→Map of Turkic-speaking countries and autonomous areas)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Iran Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Turkey B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Central Asia Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 Archives | |
|---|---|
Why is there no discussion of the accuracy dispute?
? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.132.81 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Why the Hazaras not listed here as turkic people here? They are persian speakers and many historians accept that they are of turkic background. they themselves accept it as well. thanks
The term "Turkic" is not realistic
--- the word "Turkic" is used since the late 1950's in European culture, and it was first created by USSR governments of those dates. Simply the word was used to seperate the Turkish Clans and emphasize they were not descended from the same origin, were just talking a language in similarities. The aim was to assimilate the Turkish population in the rule of USSR and to easy the resistance of their cultural behaviour. And also the term itself was translated in Turkish as "Turki", meaning not exactly Turk, similar to, looks like Turk. As in many topics of Misplaced Pages, some informations about Turkish Clans are open to dispute; as in Slavic Tribes article. Bulgarians are shown in Slavic origin and the former clans of Bulgarians as Kumans, Pecheneks are not mentioned to be Turk. But if you inspect further on the topic and go on for the links on those Tribe names you can clearly find out that they were Turkish Tribes and not Turkic; and you can get this information just by wikipedia again, which seems to be a big dilemma to me. Because they were Turkish "Boy" (= Clan ) fighting in the order of the ancient Seljuk Emperor Keykubat, and migrated towards the lands in Caucasia and then into the East Europe. Also it is clearly known that Turkish Tribes migrated towards Europe and founded the Empire of European Huns aswell. So shortly after all those arguments i want to make clear that the term "Turkic" means "Turk" and the term "Turk" does not only mean the ethnicity of Turkey's Turks, it covers all those tribes which said to be "Turkic". Turkey is a country founded after the Ottoman Empire and Ottoman Emp. was founded after Anatolian Seljuk Empire also which is the continuation of Great Seljuk Empire; all those empires were formed and ruled by several Turkish Tribes but dominantly the Oguz Turks who are a clan of Tukish Nation in ethnicity. I think this needs a correction by the way.--- Drsecancan 11:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
hi. this article relates a claim that the word "turkish" applies to all turks, and the distiction between turkish and turkic is an artificial one. article also says there is a counter-claim that says: 1) the first claim only used to support the racial theories of Pan-Turkism --> this needs good documentation and i believe it is a POV. 2) pointing out that the differences among the separate governmental administrations, as well as cultural, religious, historical, and even racial differences, are too great to speak of any political unity --> whereas there is nothing in the first claim speaking about a political unity. so this second point is irrelevant. so the second claim is pointless. i tried to write this point in the article. user Nareklm puts a "citation needed" tag there. i believe this is a logical following of the first two claims which had no citation themselves. so i think we should rather find citation for the first and second arguments. Filanca 09:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The See Also Section
The See Also section is for related topics, not lists of all the Turkic peoples. The article currently does have a list of Turkic speaking peoples.Azerbaijani 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Mughals are not Turkic
The Mughals were a branch of the Timurid dynasty of Central Asia, who were of Mongolian descent (Timur was a direct descendant of Ghengis Khan) and Persian culture. Therefore there is no reason to even discuss the Mughals on this page. 65.186.219.95 17:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Timur was not a direct descendant of Genghis Khan. But he was a member and the head of the Mongol Barlas clan. The Timurids were (at the beginning) highly Turkicized and (later) highly Persianized, but you are correct: they were of Mongol descent. Tājik 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The Mughals, yes, the name implies that they are mongols but this is just what the arabs and the persians called them and hence the english name Mughal that we use now. But the fact is that they are not quite mongols and one can deduct that they are more of Turkic origins from first hand sources. Firstly to clear this up please take a look at the Baburname (Babur's book), that Babur the founder of the Mughals wrote, look at what he has said about himself, clan and his origins, and then notice the fact that the whole book is written in the Chagtai language which is a nomadic Turkic language, and not a persian nor a mongol language.
Hazaras of central Afghanistan are a turkic group who I think should be listed here.
Lukas19
I checked the WP:Verify website. It reads:
- Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the template, or tag the article by adding
or
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Turkic peoples" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.'This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Turkic peoples" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Also, I checked the link, but that link works with cookies. Please tell me your search terms, so I can search. I tried searching for "Hungarian", but got more than 2000 links (as I should have guessed).
"87% European" does not contradict the removed statement, eg. Hungarians can be >=87% 'Uralian', as well. Ethnic Turks in Turkey may have roots in Central Asia, but genetically they are mostly Mediterranean.
--deniz 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
"Ethnic Turks" do NOT have their roots in Central Asia - their language and only a handful of direct descendents from Ottoman rulers do have. And most Hungarians are genetically the same as their neighbors. The rest are just medieval legends about heroic mass migrations and population replacements that in fact never happened in such a scale. KelilanK 18:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Unreferenced
This article cites almost nothing thats written here...and there are citation tags from a long long time ago and no one has made an effort to cite anything. Massive POV sections of this article should be deleted. What do you guys think? Maybe we can rewrite it an make it better.Azerbaijani 03:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Turks in Chinese society
- "Turks in Chinese society" "Exchanges between East Asians and Central Asians in China"
Bulgars in europe
From the article it states
"Other Bulgars settled in Europe in the 7th-8th centuries, exchanging their original Turkic tongue for what eventually became the Slavic Bulgarian language"
This not actually quite right. It goes far beyond exchanging their original Turkic language for a new slavic one. The turkic bulgars were totally and completely assimilated by the slavic population of the balkans. This occurred dramatically quickly. The bulgars probably became a ruling clan over the numerically superior slav tribes in what is now modern bulgaria and romania. They 'ruled', but adopted slavic names, language and christianity. They interbred with the locals. Most historians beleive that the "Turkishness' of the Bulgars was lost as rapidly as one or two generations. Hxseek 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Tags
Before laying blames and adding OR material without sources in pan-Turkism section, it would be worth to gather some sources to support the claims. Added the tags, so that contributors can discuss their edits instead of fighting over OR material. Atabek 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Additional subchapters
Hello, before I start adding stubs to the table of contents, I would like to hear editor's opinions. Substantial components of the Turkic history and peculiar traits belong under the general header "Turkic peoples", and not listing them, at least as stubs to be developed separately, results in a scanty picture. Some of these are, not necessarily in the same order:
Ethnology
What makes one group different from the other, in historical records and archeology:
Tradition of water desinfection methods: alcohol (kumiss) vs boiling (tea)
Sedentary water desinfection vs nomadic water desinfection
Tradition of home construction
Tradition of nomadic home construction
Burial traditions, and kurgan burials, and funerary sculpture
Animal style artistic traditions, multi-color traditions, color-studded jewelry
Relations between sexes
Structure of Religion/clergy/different religions followed accross centuries
Structure of Shamanism/clergy
Dress - boots, trousers, kaftans, kalpaks, klobuks etc
Peculiar male urination
Peruliar gesticulation (yes/no)
Mercenary culture
Symbiotic with neighbours (Sedentaries)
Leadership with neighbours
Trade vs war
Use of trade as a political tool in dealing with Turkic peoples, etc.
Etymology
In the past, at any given time existed people that spoke Turkic dialects, but never knew to call themselves Turkic. What were these general terms before the 6th century, what were other general terms synonymous with the today's "Turkic" after the 6th century.
Colonial and racistic terminology used for Turkic peoples.
Thanks, Barefact 19:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Map of Turkic-speaking countries and autonomous areas
Map of Turkic-speaking countries and autonomous areas.
This map is very inaccurate. It mentiones Kosovo has the official language of Turkish (Turkish of Turkey). It is obvious that Kosovo speaks Albanian and Serbian. Babakexorramdin 14:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is a Turkish-speaking community in Prizren, and our article on the Turkish language states that Turkish has an official status there. A news article claiming official status was conferred on Turkish "in Kosovo" is here. --Lambiam 07:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I should check this info by other sources Especially "Turkish was declared official in Kosovo in 1974, but the U.N. administration in Kosovo removed it from the official languages in 1999. " thanks for providing this newspaper report. I appreciate it. --Babakexorramdin 09:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Grey wolves
I removed the image of "Youths supporting Grey Wolves movement" in the section on Pan-Turkism, but it was re-added (without edit summary). The problem is that nothing in the article relates the text of the article with the image. Even the main article on Pan-Turkism makes no mention of Grey Wolves or the MHP. If anything, this should be dealt with in the main article before it is referred to here, and even then there should be some explanation relating the image and the text. And before that, the text should be cleaned-up, without weasel words and with proper references. For now, I'll remove the image again. --Lambiam 17:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
citations, accuracy and neutrality.
the tags were not for nothing. Honestly I do not think that by citations the quality will be improved. A lot said here was influenced by the Turkish far right groups's views such as the grey wolves. (they are recently removed from the article, I do not agree with this, because we should not hide the realty. They exist, this is the reality). To be short: there is a problem with the whole article. CITATIONS COULD BE FROM bOGUS SOURCES. THERE IS A LOT TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE. --Babakexorramdin 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictures
Or anyone provides a proof that it is a Turkish dance and not Caucasian, or I remove it. The dance is Caucasian, performed in Turkey or not. There are many Indian, Chinese, etc... dances performed daily in London, Paris, or Berlin and noone calls them English, French or German dances. I have waied too long already and I think it is not good for the quality of this article.--Babakexorramdin 13:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Categories: