Talk:Turkic peoples and User:Dr. Twitch: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{nothere|3=since June 10, 2008}}
{{talkheaderlong}}
Just to let you know I'm a [[NFL]] fan (my favorite team is the [[Jacksonville Jaguars]]) and I can help you with any NFL problem. I'm your NFL buddy. I play Slot Wide out. I am a friend of [[User: The K.O. King|The K.O. King]]. I also like basketball and baseball .(not really) I enjoy boxing and my favorite boxer of all time is [[Evander Holyfield]], whose record is 42-9-2 (27 k.o.).
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{User:UBX/NFL-Jaguars}}
{{WikiProject Iran|nested=yes| class=B | importance=high }}
{{WPTR|class=B|nested=yes|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Central Asia|nested=yes|East Asia|West Europe| ... | class=B | importance=high | ...}}
}}
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
*[[Talk:Turkic peoples/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Talk:Turkic peoples/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Talk:Turkic peoples/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
*
*
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->


== Maps need fixing ==
The map, Geographical distribution of Turkic-speaking peoples across Eurasia has errors with regards to Anatolia, has errors. Southeast Anatolia is inhabited mostly by Kurds and the Zaza yet, the maps shows it as totally Turkic. This needs to be fixed as well as the map needs to be sourced. [[User:Azalea pomp|Azalea pomp]] 19:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
*In the maps, it's written Turkic-speaking not Turkic peoples. All the Kurds and Zazas of Turkey speak Turkish. In addition, there are Turks, Arabs, and Armenians living there. The maps are not on ethnicity but language. The maps are ok in this context. Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
: The map should show only where Turkic people are the primary population in a given area as it is misleading otherwise. I have listed a map: http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~siamakr/Kurdish/map.jpg as a reference. [[User:Azalea pomp|Azalea pomp]] 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
:*No, since emphasis is given on the language not the ethnicity. The map is about "Turkic-speaking" people. In that region, all are Turkic-speaking as a first or a second language. That's the point. The map is not reflecting any ethnical distribution. Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
::If you want second language speakers, then another color needs to be included for second language speakers. For the Kurdish and Zaza areas, the color should be perhaps light green, but it cannot be the same color as the first language speakers of a Turkic language. Every area listed on the map as Turkic speaking is first language speakers except Southeast Anatolia. Also, language and ethnicity are closely tied together. Language is one very important component of ethnicity. [[User:Azalea pomp|Azalea pomp]] 01:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:Turkic languages2.PNG|right]][[:Image:Turkic languages2.PNG]] is further down the page and represents Turkic rather than Altaic. This map should be moved up. It's not clear the Altaic map is needed at all. --[[User:JWB|JWB]] 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

*Your statement ''Language is one very important component of ethnicity'' is a very strong and controversial one. I wonder how you consider the situation in [[India]], [[Pakistan]], and [[U.S.]]. By stating Turkic-speaking as i pointed out before we are not interested in any ethnicity. Your map version is not correct, since you're focusing on the ethnicity but missing/ignoring the fact that there are Turks, Azeris, Turkmens and other Turkic peoples living in that area. Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:By the way, most of the Kurdish inhabitants of Southeastern Turkey speak Turkish as their first language, or they can use Turkish as well as Kurdish, because the education is given in only Turkish and the govermental offices work only in Turkish. [[User:Azalea pomp|Azalea pomp]] may find more information on the use of Turkish language in Southeastern Turkey in the related wiki pages. He will see that language and ethnicity might mean many different things in certain conditions. Regards [[User:Caglarkoca|Caglarkoca]] 00:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
:Language part of ethnicity can be found in any definition of what constitutes an ethnic group in any cultural anthropology book. By definition, two groups who speak different language are not part of the same ethnic group. Don't confuse ethnicity with nationality or race. Also, please provide a source for your claim that Turkish is the first language of most the Kurds in Southeastern Turkey. The Ethnologue states not many speakers use Turkish: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kmr [[User:Azalea pomp|Azalea pomp]] 05:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
::According to [[Demographics of Turkey]], it's not certain exactly who speaks what in Turkish Kurdistan. Having a separate color on the map for second-language learners would be nice but I really doubt that that kind of information is even pretending to be out there. [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 06:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Having a separate color might be worth discussing, even though I am against it. However, I want to take your attention to the explanation of the map: ''Geographical distribution of Turkic-speaking peoples across Eurasia'' It says distribution. From that word I conceive that 'the regions where <s>altaic</s> Turkic language speakers constitute a significant part of the local population'. It does not necessarily mean the dominant language in that region. Hence, even if the majority of the Southeastern Turkey doesn't speak Turkish, the map is still correct. So about the sources, I have looked through the already existing articles in wikipedia about the topic. In the section [[Kurds_in_Turkey#Language]] you can see the statement that ''Many Kurds in Turkey speak only Turkish, but about 5 million people speak a Kurdish language (7-8% of the total population)''. Therefore, there is no need to change the article regarding to the the Southeastern part of Turkey. [[User:Caglarkoca|Caglarkoca]] 14:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
: The Altaic map should be removed. This is not the Altaic page. Also, Altaic is generally not accepted by most linguists, at least not Altaic in the traditional sense. [[User:Azalea pomp|Azalea pomp]] 07:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
::<s>From that word I conceive that 'the regions where altaic language speakers constitute a significant part of the local population'.</s> I meant turkic not altaic. I am sorry for this misunderstanding. [[User:Caglarkoca|Caglarkoca]] 13:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
*In Turkey, all ethnic groups are disrubuted everywhere around the country. It's impossible to state that a particular region is inhabited only by a single ethnic group. For this reason, Azalea's proposal is not suitable in case of Turkey. As i already said before, the figure caption clearly states that the image shows the Turkic-speaking regions, not ethnic Turks, that's fairly trivial. In Ethnologue report it's written as "The majority are in provinces of ..." but it does not state that there is no other ethnic groups living in that region. Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] 16:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
:E104421, can you please list a source that all ethnic groups are distributed everywhere around the country? There is no doubt there are Turkish speakers in SE Anatolia, but that isn't their native, primary location. If we go by your logic, we could make the whole world map yellow because some Turkic language is spoken nearly everywhere in world by a few people (thousand, hundred etc.). Ethnic maps should show native or primary ranges. Also, don't remove "No Citation" tags since no citation is given. Also, wikipedia is not an authority. Don't quote wikipedia, give an academic source. Perhaps instead of another color, certain parts should be zigzagged to show that the area has a significant number of Turkic speakers. [[User:Azalea pomp|Azalea pomp]] 07:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
::Azalea, I believe my source should be enough to tell you that Kurds do not necesarily speak Kurdish as their mother tongue in Turkey. http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCneydo%C4%9Fu_Anadolu_B%C3%B6lgesi from this link, you will see some statistics regarding the language used in the southeastern Turkey. The source is Ethnic Structure of Turkey by Ali Tayyar Onder. It is written that in the SE Turkey Mothertongue: 54.4% Kurdish, 45.6% Turkish. The language used: 63% Turkish, 37% Kurdish. I do not have the book, but it is cited as source in Turkish wikipedi. I think this concludes your problems about the language used in the SE Turkey. Even if the mothertongue is taken as the basis of this map, 45.6% is a large enough number to show on the map. [[User:Caglarkoca|Caglarkoca]] 13:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia is not an authority, but it is good enough to use in wikipedia. A good encyclopedia should not contradict itself. [[User:Caglarkoca|Caglarkoca]] 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
*Azalea, you should first note that i'm not the only person editing the article. I do not remove "citation tags" unless i provide a source for that. Secondly, i did not quote wikipedia. See the [http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=tur Ethnologue report for Turkish], too. It's written there "''Spoken throughout Turkey as first or second language"''. This is the thousand times i'm repeating the same argument, "the map is on Turkic-speaking people". It's an official language of Turkey, the education is also in Turkish. They speak Turkish. There are many different Kurdish dialects in Turkey, and most of them are not mutuallty intelligible. In addittion, in the easten part of Turkey (not SE), the population is mostly Turkish. You included these parts into the map, too. It's also written in Ethnologue that "''The majority are in provinces of Hakkari, Siirt, Mardin, Agri, Diyarbakir, Bitlis, Bingol, Van, Adiyaman, and Mus''", however, this cannot be interpreted as they have the majority in all these provinces or there are no Turkic-speaking people. Do not miss that nuance! Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] 15:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
: Fair enough. Now, what are we going to do with that Altaic map? There is already an Altaic page and an Altaic map is not necessary on the Turkic page. Also, Altaic in the traditional sense is not generally accepted by most linguists as a valid language family. [[User:Azalea pomp|Azalea pomp]] 23:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
::I don't think this page has a strong need for the Altaic map, especially one that doesn't shade Turkic, Mongolian and Tungus separately. However, the doubts are only whether Altaic is a [[genetic (linguistics)]] relationship rather than the result of long close contact and borrowing. Nobody questions that the three families show a strong resemblance, probably more than to any other languages, and that it is a traditional grouping. Also, the doubters are mostly not specialists in Altaic themselves, and have been accused of applying more stringent criteria that would also invalidate other genetic families like Indo-European.
::Turkic is part of a number of proposed larger groups such as Altaic, [[Ural-Altaic]], [[Nostratic]], [[Eurasiatic]], and [[Borean]]. --[[User:JWB|JWB]]
::: I would like to see an academic source for applying stringent criteria that would also invalidate other genetic families like Indo-European. Indo-European is not disputed by any serious linguist. In any event, IE is made up of relatively closely related languages and it has many sound correspondences. Also, the so called core group of Altaic has members no more related to one another than say Tungus is to Japanese, etc because well there is not a consensus that Altaic as a language family even exists... [[User:Azalea pomp|Azalea pomp]] 03:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
::Also not sure what you mean by "the traditional sense". I think Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungus is the traditional sense and is the most secure. Adding Korean and Japanese has been more controversial. --[[User:JWB|JWB]] 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Read by comment right above. [[User:Azalea pomp|Azalea pomp]] 03:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
*The Altaic in its extended form is a controversial/technical issue and extraneous to the context of this article. However, the family name "Altaic" is a commonly used terminology to label these languages. Turkic, Tungus, and Mongolian are still Altaic regardless of exact status of Altaic is. If the map is re-drawn to reflect the "core" group (Turkic, Tungusic, and Mongolic) and the "extension" group (Korean, Japonic, and Ainu) each with different colours, it might be useful. I'm not sure whether a treatment of Altaic at that point is necessary at all, since it is really a technical issue of not much interest here. I'd share in the opinion that ''the Turkic peoples article does not have a strong need for the Altaic map''. Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Wouldn't a better main picture for this page be a a collage of various Turkic speakers: a Turk, a Gagauz, a Yakut, etc borrowed from the other wikipedia pages? [[User:Azalea pomp|Azalea pomp]] 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
*Sure, that would be better. Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] 19:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


you are correct. the map says it shows Turkic peoples but it barely shows turkic speakers. considering the genetic profile of anatolian turks>> "The most reliable estimates suggest roughly 30% Central Asian admixture for both mitochondrial and Ychromosome loci (in Anatolia-Turkey). That (admittedly approximate) figure is compatible both with a substantial immigration accompanying the arrival of the Turkmen armies (which is not historically documented), and with continuous gene flow from Asia into Anatolia, at a rate of 1% for 40 generations." [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks
i think it's not rightful for Turkish people. some turkish people claim [[Anatolian]] blood and others Turkic. it's their blood and they are to decide what they want to be called, but "roughly 30% Central Asian admixture" says a lot about the fake 100% yellow Turkey, Turkic peoples map. [[User:DefendEurope|DefendEurope]] ([[User talk:DefendEurope|talk]]) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

== Turkish minority in Bulgaria & Greece, Iraqi Turkmens, Iranian Azeris... ==

I can't locate them in any of these maps. This article needs improvement. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Slntssssn|Slntssssn]] ([[User talk:Slntssssn|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Slntssssn|contribs]]) 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Again the Ardahan Picture ==

While our friend here providing us with a Link to the Ardahan governorship I could not find that picture back in their website. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE ISN NOT SUCH A PICTURE THERE, BUT PLEASE GIVE ME THE EXACT LINK! I need this to see whether this dance is Turkich or not even if it is taken from Ardahan governorship does not make the dance Turkish, because the area is also populated by Georgians, Azeris, Kurds and before also Armenians. The dance and cloths are not Turkish. According to me the dance is a Caucasian one (Georgian, Azeri or Armenian) and is not an Anatolian either Turkish or Kurdish dance. There are plenty of pictures from Turks in turkey why don't you take another picture which represent them better? --[[User:Babakexorramdin|Babakexorramdin]] ([[User talk:Babakexorramdin|talk]]) 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
*Please, discuss the issue with the uploader of the image. I'm sure the uploader will provide you the details better than everybody. As i already explained above, the image caption says "Turkish dancers" in Ardahan. The name or the origin of the dance is not mentioned there. In this context, there is nothing wrong. If you're more concerned in the details, contact with the uploader instead of disputing/reverting. Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] ([[User talk:E104421|talk]]) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::::: Man, Im saying that I wanted to check it with the source but there was no sucha picture there. And if there was such a picture it does not mean that it is an Anatolian Turkish dance. Every one sees it is a Caucasian one. I DO THINK that in the list there is a picture needed which represents Turks of Turkey, but a Picture which is representative. If you have such a picture upload it please. I have no idea who has been the uploader of this image. --[[User:Babakexorramdin|Babakexorramdin]] ([[User talk:Babakexorramdin|talk]]) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
**Contact with the uploader of the image. That's quite simple. Go to the image page, and find the username of the uploader. Post a message. Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] ([[User talk:E104421|talk]]) 21:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::: I went there and saw that you put your comments there, so lets give him time to reply. --[[User:Babakexorramdin|Babakexorramdin]] ([[User talk:Babakexorramdin|talk]]) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::: And? It cannot be unresolved for ages.--[[User:Babakexorramdin|Babakexorramdin]] ([[User talk:Babakexorramdin|talk]]) 09:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the uploaders latest response less than forthcoming and somewhat rude, and don't expect a resolution from that side. To break the impasse, I've replaced the image. If you don't like it, find something better, but please do not reinstate the contested image, which I think ought to be deleted anyway since it cannot be asserted to be free. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 17:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
.
.yes unfortunately lately there have been irresponsible reactions and actions from people who edit Turkic and Iranian pages. As thez edit as unsigned people it should be doubted about their identity, Turk or not--[[User:Babakexorramdin|Babakexorramdin]] 09:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

== What was wrong with expanding the caption? ==

I expanded the caption of the picture in the lead paragraph from
:Turkmen girl.
to
:Turkmen girl. The [[Turkmen people]] are one of many Turkic peoples.
The reason is that this makes clear to the reader, who may look at the image first, how the image relates to the subject of the article. In the text the first mention of the Turkmens as a people is only many screens and sections down, in section number 6 on History. However, this change was reverted, without edit summary.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=180213427&oldid=180091279] Why? &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 08:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

== Please don't edit war over the picture ==

[[Image:Turkman girl in national dress.jpg|100px|right]]
[[Image:Khotan-melikawat-chicas-d03.jpg|100px|right]]
Why are we seeing a [[WP:LAME|lame edit war]] over these pictures? Some may like one better, some may like the other better, but is one of so bad, that it is better not to have a picture than that one? Please discuss this on the talk page please. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 15:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
:I already asked this to the user who insist on his choice. In my oppinion there should be no picture at the top of the article with a face of a person. Turkic people are a diverse group. There is a gallery at the bottom which should be sufficient. This article needs a lot of improvement and that is not going to happen by including more images.--[[User:Nostradamus1|Nostradamus1]] ([[User talk:Nostradamus1|talk]]) 16:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
::The image was put there on November 11 by an anon[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=170772163&oldid=170705252] but immediately reverted[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=next&oldid=170772163], and again put there on December 5[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=175913707&oldid=175126663] and again reverted[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=176349564&oldid=175914059] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=176498721&oldid=176349564] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=176581839&oldid=176581512] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=176826925&oldid=176749312] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=176855143&oldid=176827570] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=176989781&oldid=176989646] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=177902601&oldid=177843018] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=177997552&oldid=177902601] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=178352513&oldid=177997552] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=178401381&oldid=178352513] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=179812794&oldid=179064379] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=179874670&oldid=179812794] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=179881691&oldid=179874670] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=179925942&oldid=179881691] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=180068794&oldid=179997134]. Then we had some peace until one editor decided: "''I like this one better''".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=next&oldid=180403772] That is clearly a very strong argument. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same taste, and there we go again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=180604949&oldid=180541219] and... But look now! The editor who "liked the other one better" apparently thinks: "my face or no face"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=180707498&oldid=180688459], which is reverted[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=180788307&oldid=180759284] and again re-reverted[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=180812476&oldid=180809396] and again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=180867032&oldid=180836718] and ...
::Look, it takes (at least) two to edit war, and ''who exactly'' is it who "insist[s] on his choice"? Don't we see two editors, both of whom insist on ''their'' choice, but are unable to engage in any meaningful discussion on the issue(which should ake place on the talk page of the article)? Don't you see how totally lame this edit war is? &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
:::The person who commented "I like this one better" was me. This was to emphasize the subjectiveness of insisting on a particular face. There are many articles linked here. The face of a Turkmen or Uygur girl is not going to represent the Turkic peoples. A geographical distribution map or a picture of some other common cultural element would serve better the article.[[User:Nostradamus1|Nostradamus1]] ([[User talk:Nostradamus1|talk]]) 23:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
::::There are articles concerning ethnic groups of peoples that do not open with an image of a member or members of one of the groups, but there are also articles that do, such as [[Aboriginal peoples in Canada]], [[Indigenous peoples in Brazil]], [[Indigenous peoples in Colombia]], [[Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast]], [[Puebloan peoples]], and [[Tai peoples]]. Quite similarly, in many articles on specific peoples only one or a group of individuals is shown, as for example for [[Arab]], [[Azerbaijani people]] (a featured article), [[Circassians]], and [[Gagauz people]]. While it is true that none "represents" the entirety in the sense of being representative of all, I don't see why that is a problem in these articles, and I don't see why it should be a problem here. The text "The Turkmen people are one of many Turkic peoples" should make that clear even to the less astute reader. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 11:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Your comparison of the Turkic peoples with the Thai, Azerbaijani, etc. tells me you place them all in the same group. This article is about "Turkic Peoples" -PLURAL. It is a different kind of a grouping. It is concerning to me that you make such a compsrison. You seem to be involved in articles related to Turkic people . Uninformed contributors with a NPOV can have their effect too .Compare [[Turkic Peoples]] with [[Germanic Peoples]], [[Slavic Peoples]] . [[User:Nostradamus1|Nostradamus1]] ([[User talk:Nostradamus1|talk]]) 14:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::You ignore the argument, and instead resort to an [[ad hominem]] argument. However, unlike you suggest, I did not compare the Turkic peoples with the Thai, Azerbaijani, etc., but only the use of the image in ths article with the use of an image in several other articles that represents a single element of the group that is the topic of the article. I clearly, and purposely, labelled this with "similarly". And furthermore, just like "Turkic peoples" is plural, so are "Aboriginal people'''s''' in Canada", "Indigenous people'''s''' in Brazil", "Indigenous people'''s''' in Colombia", "Indigenous people'''s''' of the Pacific Northwest Coast", "Puebloan people'''s'''", and "Tai people'''s'''". Several of these groups of peoples are much more inhomogeneous than the Turkic peoples. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 19:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I do not ignore the argument. What is the argument? Your comparison of Turkic people with Indigenous Peoples of Brasil is revealing. Whether you are doing with intention or out of ignorance this article is suffering from it. We have a user insisting on a picture that resembles the "indigenous" natives of North America claiming that other similar articles have images too. You are fine with it. I say this (Turkic people ) article should not have images of people -pushed mostly by some nationalists with limited English skills. It should be written in a manner similar to articles for Celtic, Germanic, or Slavic peoples that also have a language family in addition to multiple related past and contemporary nations. [[User:Nostradamus1|Nostradamus1]] ([[User talk:Nostradamus1|talk]]) 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
(exdent) What do the language skills of some editors have to do with this issue? Again, as I said before, I am ''not'' comparing the Turkic peoples with the indigenous peoples in Brazil, but only the ''use of images'' that might be objected against as not being representative of the ensemble that is the topic of the article. Why should [[Turkic peoples]] be more like [[Germanic peoples]] or [[Slavic peoples]]? Are these really that similar? The designation "[[Germanic peoples]]" is used for a ''historical'' group of peoples. Are there any ''contemporary'' identifiable ethnic groups that are ''now'' called "a Germanic people" or "a Slavic people"? It is for a reason that the article [[Germanic peoples]] is illustrated by the pagan god [[Donar]], even though the Germanic tribes were Christianized in the Middle Ages and most contemporary Germans are mainly Lutherans or Roman Catholics. In contrast, our articles on the [[Altay people]], [[Balkars]], [[Chulyms]], [[Chuvash people]], [[Dolgans]], [[Karachays]], [[Kazakhs]], [[Khakas]], [[Kumyks]], [[Nogais]], [[Telengit]], [[Teleuts]], [[Turkmen people]], [[Uyghur people]], [[Uzbeks]], [[Volga Tatars]], and [[Yakuts]], in each case identify them as a Turkic people: from "The '''Altay''' or '''Altai''' are a [[Turkic peoples|Turkic people]]" up to "'''Yakuts''' ... are a [[Turkic people]]". Being a Turkic ''people'' is very much a living attribute of many contemporary ethnic groups, and for that reason it is not unreasonable to use examples of actual contemporary Turkic peoples as an illustration. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:If you claim that there are no contemporary peoples identifying themselves as a Slavic people I don't have much to say other than express my disagreement.--[[User:Nostradamus1|Nostradamus1]] ([[User talk:Nostradamus1|talk]]) 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
::. You are right, the ethnic groups speaking a Slavic language are occasionally called a Slavic people. I expressed myself too strongly; however, you can't deny that that designation is not particularly common. The Google search term "are a Slavic people" gets '''88 hits'''; the search term "are a Turkic people" gets about '''10,700''' hits. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Actually it is quite common for Bulgarians to emphasize that they are a Slavic people. The Google search results can not be a measure for this. There are many more different Turkic ethnic groups and, perhaps, a greater interest in uncovering their history. Treating the Turkic people as a single ethnic group would be misleading. The term Turkic -which I do find useful- has been proposed by Russian researchers in an attempt to group these "Turkic" ethnicities that have things in common. These common aspects that make up the Turkic peoples should be the primary focus of the article not the pictures of people. --[[User:Nostradamus1|Nostradamus1]] ([[User talk:Nostradamus1|talk]]) 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Both Germanic and Slavic meta-ethnic identities are important for their representatives. Pan-Germanic nationalism reached its peak in the beginning of WWII, but was then quelled, while in the case of the Slavs there was Pan-Slavism. Non-white persons in Russia, for instance, are frequently referred to as people of non-Slavic appearance. The reason why the Turkic meta-ethnicity is so frequently mentioned on the internet is that the majority of its ethnicities aren't as widely known in the West as various Slavic and German ethnicities, so saying that they're Turkic is a good way of introducing them. --[[Special:Contributions/217.172.29.4|217.172.29.4]] ([[User talk:217.172.29.4|talk]]) 15:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't think anyone would want to make pictures of people the ''primary focus'' of the article. In any case, a single picture in the lead paragraph will not have that effect. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 10:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
: I have changed the picture to show ALL the turkic groups (ie the picture of the map)- we should not have one person in the picture when there is 180-200 million people! completly ludicrous&nbsp;--[[User talk:Ozipozi|Ozipozi]] 07:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

== Kipchaks Under Turkic Peoples Links ==

I am adding Kipchaks under the links somebody forgot, but I am offended a little (Kipchak my self). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Atilla1234|Atilla1234]] ([[User talk:Atilla1234|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Atilla1234|contribs]]) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The link goes to the article [[Kipchaks]], which is really about the ''ancient'' Kipchaks. The [[Cumans]] are treated as extinct, with all verbs in the past tense. Should we have an article on modern Kipchaks? &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 10:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not know there was a difference between ancient Kipchaks and modern ones but yeah sure we should make an ardicle or at least a section under Kipchaks. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Atilla1234|Atilla1234]] ([[User talk:Atilla1234|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Atilla1234|contribs]]) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== [[:Image:GokturkFlag.png]] ==

Please stop adding this image. It is unreferenced and entirely a product of its creator's imagination. No source describes a flag of this type in use among the Gokturks. That this image survived deletion is in direct contravention to Wikipedia policies. In any event, it has no encyclopedic value in this article. [[User:Briangotts|Briangotts]] [[User talk:Briangotts|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Briangotts|(Contrib)]] 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
*There are sources about the flag (e.g. [[Lev Gumilev]] ... etc.) as explained in [[Image_talk:GokturkFlag.png|the talk page of the image]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk%3AGokturkFlag.png&diff=161728552&oldid=139200216 here]). However, i wonder whether there exists sources claiming the contrary (this flag is not the Gokturk's flag). Unless it's [[Falsifiability|falsified]], i'm in favor of keeping the image. It's sourced (Gumilev is a well-known expert on Turkic history) and informative about the mythological symbols used by the [[Gokturks]]. Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] ([[User talk:E104421|talk]]) 19:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
:E104421, I disagree with you regarding flag being sourced. Gumilev's study regarding the use of a wolf's head for a totem and the look and design of the flag from the Flags of the World website are totally separate things. The flag is unsourced. The Flags of the World website even uses the word "alleged" in reference to the flag. Using Gumilev as a source for the flag is like trying to reconstruct the US flag based upon the common description "stars and stripes". --[[User:Sborsody|Stacey Doljack Borsody]] ([[User talk:Sborsody|talk]]) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
::A flag featuring a wolf's head is more descriptive than "stars and stripes" where there can be many arrangements. I wonder if there is a source about the color though. [[User:Filanca|Filanca]] ([[User talk:Filanca|talk]]) 07:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::That's the point. A flag featuring a wolf's head ISN'T more descriptive. For example, which direction is the head supposed to be looking? Which area of the flag is the head supposed to be placed in? And as you pointed out, what colors are supposed to be used? --[[User:Sborsody|Stacey Doljack Borsody]] ([[User talk:Sborsody|talk]]) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::Besides, were the teeth visible, and if so which ones? How long were the ears compared to the rest of the head? My point is, unless we have a copy of this flag, which is impossible to find, there may be no description good enough for an exact reconstruction. All current images drawn out of descriptions are only representations, just to visualise something, to get as close as possible to the thing described. By the way, I dont think all flags of Gokturks were exactly the same as each other in a time and place where there was not internet or pringing presses. As for color, I think blue is for the sake of "Gokturk" name but as for green, I have no idea. [[User:Filanca|Filanca]] ([[User talk:Filanca|talk]]) 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Point taken, but you must realize that no one has any clue as to what fair description the Office of the President of Turkey is even using to create such a flag. --[[User:Sborsody|Stacey Doljack Borsody]] ([[User talk:Sborsody|talk]]) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== Image:Turkic languages.png ==
[[Image:Turkic languages.png|right|thumb]]
Entire turkey is coloured yellow, probably because the majority are turkic people, but the kurds aren't turkic I think. For a more accurate map it's probably best to adjust the image with only the turkic inhabitants of turkey coloured yellow. [[User:Pietervhuis|- PietervHuis]] ([[User talk:Pietervhuis|talk]]) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:Done. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above [[Talk:Turkic_peoples#Maps_need_fixing]]. [[User:E104421|E104421]] ([[User talk:E104421|talk]]) 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:I read it. This article is about Turkic ''peoples'', not Turkic languages. The yellow map can be added to the [[Turkic languages]] article, but since Kurds are not a Turkic people, they should not be listed as such in the map. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:Here are some sources:
:*[http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kurdish_86.jpg Kurdish Areas in the Middle East and the Soviet Union]
:*[http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kurdish_lands_92.jpg Kurdish Lands (location map)]
:<tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As already explained in the discussion above, these regions are not reserved only to the Kurds. Turks, Arabs, Asyriyans, Zazas and of course Kurds are living in that region. I recommend you to re-read the above dıscussion. Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] ([[User talk:E104421|talk]]) 11:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:So you admit that the region is not 100% Turkish. However, the map gives the appearance that it is. This is inaccurate. I have cited my sources, now it is up to you to cite yours. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
::Is it a requirement to have 100% Turkish speakers in every area? Are there not any Turkish speakers in these areas? I do no know who is making these maps and certainly it is hard to paint an exact linguistic map but the agenda of those trying to paint the linguistic map of Turkey differently is too obvious. Why are there only two small dots in Bulgaria? Turkish speakers are distributed in a much wider area and are 10% of the population. Would you like to correct that too? Iran also needs a little more coloring.--[[User:Nostradamus1|Nostradamus1]] ([[User talk:Nostradamus1|talk]]) 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:::My point is that the yellow map gives the appearance that Turks form the majority in southeast Turkey, when we have other maps (even ones on Wikipedia such as the one at [[Iranian languages]]) that directly contradict this. As for Bulgaria, I'm guessing that the map could be based off [http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/product/305/313/173.html this] one. [http://www.princeton.edu/~humcomp/Iranpeoples.gif Here]'s a map of ethnic groups in Iran. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 19:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:By the way, out of all the people that you mention (Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Assyrians, Zazas), only one of them are a Turkic people. That means if you include the Assyrians, Arabs, and Zazas on the map, they would not be yellow or turquoise or whatever color Turkic peoples are labed as. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 19:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
::I'm with E104421 on this one. There is no place in Turkey where Turkish is not spoken. That other languages are spoken side by side with it, perhaps even by local majorities, is irrelevant from the perspective of this map. The map is meant to show where Turkic languages exist, not where they exist exclusively. I find it pretty obvious that countries where a Turkic language is the sole official language should be included in full. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 09:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
:::As I said in my edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=229421369&oldid=229410401], there should be no '''double standards''' . In Iran the same phenomenon is true :"''There is no place in Iran where Persian is not spoken. That other languages are spoken side by side with it, perhaps even by local majorities, is irrelevant from the perspective of this map.''" Then why should we consider the official language as the determining point for map in Turkey , and in Iran , the local language must be considered as the point ?! --[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] ([[User talk:Alborz Fallah|talk]]) 13:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
:::: Well, of course, in a map showing Iranian languages, all of Iran should be included. This, however, is a map of Turkish languages. Iranian languages are simply irrelevant to it. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 14:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::As I stated previously, this article is about Turkic ''peoples'', not the Turkic languages. I would agree with you if it were about the latter. But just because many Kurds speak Turkish as a second or first language or whatever, does not change their ethnicity. They are not a Turkic people regardless of what language they speak. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 19:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::: For Future Perfect at Sunrise: Considering the official language in the motherland ''plus'' the unofficial language in other countries for drawing maps in Wikipedia is a new concept. Neither in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Moderniranianlanguagesmap.jpg Iranian language map] , nor in other others (e.g : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Slavic_languages_2000s.png Slavac] ,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RussianLanguageMap.png Russian] and etc ) that has been not the routine .That can be a new way of drawing such maps , but it may have footnotes to show that's an especial one --[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] ([[User talk:Alborz Fallah|talk]]) 20:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::: To Alborz: I'm not sure what you mean. The Russian language map you point do does just what I said it should: It shows the whole of Russia as Russian-speaking, although there are of course numerous local non-Russian languages within that territory. The Iranian map is a bit different, but that's due to the fact that it doesn't just show the extent of all Iranian languages together (like the Turkic map does), but attempts to go into a lot more detail about the various local varieties. - To Khoikhoi: The map is about languages, not ethnicities. I have no opinions about how you would treat ethnicities cartographically. In fact, I profess I have not the slightest idea what the concept of "Turkic peoples" is supposed to refer to in the first place. The whole premise that there should be such a thing, different from the linguistic facts, seems quite bizarre to me. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Fut.Perf.: if I start learning Turkmen, and become fluent in it, does that make me a Turk? Perhaps a new map should be made showing only Turkic peoples, as opposed to a map of the Turkic languages. But Kurds who speak Turkish are not automatically transformed into Turks by doing so. Ethnicity has a great dealt to do with self-designation - someone can identify as a Kurd yet not be able to speak a word of Kurdish. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 00:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for late reply. I'd like to quote the first (leading) sentence of the Turkic peoples article: ''"The Turkic peoples are Eurasian peoples residing in northern, central and western Eurasia who speak languages belonging to the Turkic language family."'' In fact, this is the only definition. You may narrow down the definition by adding "native" to that sentence, but in any case this does not change the fact that there are Turkic peoples living in the south-eastern part of Turkey. For this reason, i'm in favor of reverting the image. Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] ([[User talk:E104421|talk]]) 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:According to the [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/609972/Turkic-peoples Britannica] article on Turkic peoples: ''They are historically and linguistically connected with the [[Göktürks|T’u-chüeh]], the name given by the Chinese to the nomadic people who in the 6th century ad founded an empire stretching from Mongolia and the northern frontier of China to the Black Sea.'' Are Kurds "historically and linguistically connected with the T’u-chüeh"? [http://www.bartleby.com/59/13/kurds.html The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy] calls them "A linguistically and culturally distinct people". Now on the subject of Turkic peoples living in southeastern Turkey, no one is denying that Turks live there, but here is another quote you might like: ''The majority of those killed have been from among Turkey's ethnic Kurdish minority, <u>who form the majority in the southeastern region</u>.'' ([http://original.britannica.com/eb/topic-325191/Kurd]). <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 06:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

*As you've just stated "''no one is denying that Turks live there''". The map just shows where the Turkic peoples live. The current map is misleading. Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] ([[User talk:E104421|talk]]) 21:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
**Look at the upper-left corner of [http://www.princeton.edu/~humcomp/Iranpeoples.gif this map] for example. You can see that although the map shows Turks living in southeastern Anatolia, the main group there are Kurds. If we're going to give an accurate ethnic map of Turkic peoples, let's not give readers the false impression that Turks form the majority in southeastern Anatolia. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 03:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

*It's not giving any false impression, the map also shows European countries where the number of Turks quite lower than the southern-estern of Turkey. Your map gives an impression as if there is no Turks living in that region. Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] ([[User talk:E104421|talk]]) 04:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
**In southeastern Turkey, Kurds form the majority in the rural areas ([http://books.google.com/books?id=TqXjX8ZSH6kC&pg=PA98&dq=kurds+rural+turkey&lr=&ei=FV3RSMevNo3gswOj0OXbAw&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U38g3pkOZiIGVt6Ogu0llHKSpXioA#PPA98,M1]). Turks in southeastern Turkey mainly live in the urban areas. So to paint both the rural '''and''' urban areas as Turkish would be inaccurate. Here's an example, an ethnic map of Austria-Hungary: [http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/europe/Austria-Hungary.jpg]. Around this time, Romanians were the majority in the rural areas in Transylvania while Hungarians predominated most of the cities. Yet you don't see the author trying to give the appearance that Transylvania was totally Hungarian. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 19:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
*Your recent example seems to be irrelevant to the case in southeastern Turkey. As i already stated several times above, nobody denies that Turks, Kurds, Zazas, Arabs, Assriyans, ... living in that region. There are many different ethnicities in Turkey. The map just shows where Turkic peoples live, it does not state that Turkic-speaking peoples have the majority in all these regions. For example, the map shows Germany, Bulgaria, Greece, ... There is no such claim. There is nothing wrong in using that picture in the Turkic peoples article. For the Turkic topics template, the map is even more appropriate, since Turkic topics also coves Turkic languages. The map of distribution of Turkic languages is quite informative for that template. For this reason, i put a caption under the map in Turkic peoples article, in order to make you happy, by emphasizing the "Turkic-speaking". Regards. [[User:E104421|E104421]] ([[User talk:E104421|talk]]) 14:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
**Zazas, Arabs, and Assyrians aren't Turkic peoples either, so they wouldn't count as such on the map. Turks also live in Germany, but if Germany was on the map would we color all of Germany yellow or turquoise? I don't understand this logic. Note [http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/ethnocaucasus.jpg here] in an ethnic map of the Caucasus, Kurds are shown in dark green since they are the majority in this part of Turkey, while you can see Turks marked with a capital "T". It's not the other way around. That's how ethnic maps work. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 05:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
*This is not an ethnic map. It just shows where it's more likely to find a Turkic people. That's it. [[User:E104421|E104421]] ([[User talk:E104421|talk]]) 10:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::Fair enough, but the image substituted seems to have some rather obvious errors.. <b><i>[[user:Scythian77|The Scythian]]</i></b> 17:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

== the problem of the user:Jingiby ==

Jingiby claims that Turkic peoples are from different races. he claim this idea from the (non-existed) source of brittanica. but sources in today are show that these eurasian peoples are share the same history and have a same roots(from central asia). i suggest that the entrance of the page should be re-write by neutral academics.(not by Jingiby) --[[User:Orkh|Orkh]] ([[User talk:Orkh|talk]]) 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
:I don't think that's the Jingiby's POV . The exact text of [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/609972/Turkic-peoples#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Turkic%20people%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia britannica] is the follow : <blockquote>"Turkic peoples display a great variety of ethnic types." </blockquote> <br />I think you may not change "Turkic peoples" to "Turkic people" and "The Turkic peoples are various linguistically related Eurasian peoples" to "The Turkic people are an ethnic Eurasian people" . Thank you--[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] ([[User talk:Alborz Fallah|talk]]) 08:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)



As a new nation state founded in 1923 on the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey faced the need to establish a new national identity and ideology. Kemalist conceptions of national identity were not limited to civic nationalist ideologies, but incorporated racist ascriptions of ethnic nationalism as well. The author’s analysis reveals a dominating and exclusionary discourse of Turkish nationalism, in which the ‘Turkish race’ (posited as the dominant national group) had a sense of proprietary ownership of the nation and national identity. [http://cdy.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/3/291 The Turkish Review of Anthropology and the Racist Face of Turkish Nationalism] [[User:Jingiby|Jingby]] ([[User talk:Jingiby|talk]]) 19:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


ok, i think he/she will stop.--[[User:Orkh|Orkh]] ([[User talk:Orkh|talk]]) 00:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

pls someone stop Jingiby, he is such a racist and vandalist, hey Jingiby you hate Turkic people because you are a racist Slavic Bulgarian... but you hate your Turkic ancestries... everybody hate you, racist pig!!--[[Special:Contributions/85.107.110.87|85.107.110.87]] ([[User talk:85.107.110.87|talk]]) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I respect the Turkic peoples, however the Bulgars were Turkic! Your problem are the reliable sources. According to Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In general, the most reliable sources are [[peer-reviewed]] journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Regards! See:[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] [[User:Jingiby|Jingby]] ([[User talk:Jingiby|talk]]) 07:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear unregistred sockpuppet and vandal, here is an Encyclopedia, not nationalistic forum. If you only insist makeing blind reverts without explanation and references this will not help your thesis! Please, explain your point of view and show your references1 Regards... [[User:Jingiby|Jingby]] ([[User talk:Jingiby|talk]]) 14:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
::I think if it continues , the page should be protected . --[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] ([[User talk:Alborz Fallah|talk]]) 10:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
== Section Mythology ==
The section on Mythology seems to be miserable ! In fact , the mythology of the Turkic peoples that spoke Turkic languages , is not alike and almost no element is common between Iranian Azeri and the central Asian Turkic language people .Neither Turks of Turkey , nor Azeris of Iran and Az.Rep have ever practiced Tengriism and other Shamanistic religions as it is written in this sentence :"''Tengriism and other Shamanistic religions had been the dominant religion for most of history''"! Zend-Avesta , never talks about the Turks and talks about [[Turan|Turanians]] that where not Turkic but Indo-European language .Tengriism is not a monotheistic religion.[[Epic of King Gesar]] is not relevant to any Turkish Mythology and that is Tibetan.Almost no Muslim (scholar or not scholar) , believes that sura 108 of the Quran (Al-Kawthar) has any connection to Tibetan Geser and [[Togarmah]] in the Bible has nothing to do with the Turks . <br />I think the whole section needs a major edit .--[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] ([[User talk:Alborz Fallah|talk]]) 10:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
==Tatars==
There are more than 10 ''million'' Tatars, and removing them from the page is inexcusable revisionism, [[User:Nonsenseshame|Nonsenseshame]]. Also, you appear to be engaging in an edit war rather than a discussion. '''<font color=#BA55D3>[[User:Emilyzilch|ناهد/(Nåhed)]]''' <sub>''[[User_Talk:Emilyzilch|speak!]]''</sub></font> 21:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed. <b><i>[[user:Scythian77|The Scythian]]</i></b> 07:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but just 7 millions, don't try to exagerate with number. I once in the past, when I was not registered, added Tatars to top of this page, but it had been reverted of course. So there is no reason that now whouldn't be so. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.210.193.217|195.210.193.217]] ([[User talk:195.210.193.217|talk]]) 10:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== new problem: destroying the turkic roots by idiots ==

why do racist people in here always attack turks. wikipedia should use filters for those pple.--[[Special:Contributions/195.174.9.35|195.174.9.35]] ([[User talk:195.174.9.35|talk]]) 11:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:01, 10 October 2008

Template:Nothere Just to let you know I'm a NFL fan (my favorite team is the Jacksonville Jaguars) and I can help you with any NFL problem. I'm your NFL buddy. I play Slot Wide out. I am a friend of The K.O. King. I also like basketball and baseball .(not really) I enjoy boxing and my favorite boxer of all time is Evander Holyfield, whose record is 42-9-2 (27 k.o.).

JAXThis user is a fan of the
Jacksonville Jaguars.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkic_peoples&oldid=244278349"