Talk:Turkic peoples/Archive 3

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).

Images of People Should Go

Some contributors must have taken it too literary. There are images of people who supposedly are the representative samples of Turkic peoples. This is not what this article should be about. Anyone who compares Germanic peoples, Slavic peoples, Celtic peoples with this article would notice the contrast.Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia, 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.

Mughal rule extended from Bangladesh to Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahauddeen (talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mughal Founder Babur Said He was Turkic

Mughals -a name that is often mistaken for Mongols- are without any doubt Turkic because the founder of the dynasty and the Mughal Empire Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur indicated this in his own words in Baburnama -his autobiography. The word moghul is employed in the Baburnama and elsewhere for the Turkicized descendants of Genghis Khan's Mongols. However,

1. Babur was not a Moghul: In Baburnama he often refers to the Moghuls as "they". For example, he wrote:

   The Moghul troops who had come as reinforcements had no endurance for battle. They left the battle and begun to unhorse and plunder our own men. It was not just here they did this: these wretched Moghuls always do this. If they win they take booty; if they lose they unhorse their own people and plunder them for booty.

2. Babur was a Turk: He wrote

   Since we had always had in mind to take Hindustan, we regarded as our own territory the several areas of Bhera, Khushab, Chenab, and Chiniot, which had long been in the hands of the Turk. We were determined to gain control ourselves -be it by force or peaceful means- and therefore it behooved us to treat the mountain people well. … We attached those who came who had come to Abdul-Rahim Shiqvul and sent them to Bhera to gain the trust of the Bhera people. ‘These districts have long belonged to the Turk’, we said. ‘Beware lest the men give them cause for fear to bring ruin upon them, for our regard is upon this district and its people. There will be no pillage or plunder.’ Baburnama, pp. 271-272,

   Before the siege of Bayana -‘one of the most famous fortresses in Hindustan’- Babur composed extemporaneously and sent along the following poem:

   Trifle not with the Turk, O Mir of Bayana
   For the agility and bravery of the Turk are obvious.
   If you do not come soon and listen to reason
   What need is there for clarification of the obvious?

   --Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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 . Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.[1]'

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)

It took much longer than two generations for the Turkic Bulgars to become the Slavic Bulgarians. There is not a clear date but some historians consider the Boris I who came to power in 865 to be the first Bulgarian king. However the Turkic elements in the Bulgar kingdom survived well into the reign of Simeon I, -the Great-. Boris I had converted to Christianity, however, his successor son Vladimir resented this and reverted back to the traditional Turkic ways. He was deposed and replaced by his brother, Simeon I -who had been trained to become a priest in Constantinople. So it is quite clear than the Turkic customs of Bulgars were still present among the 10th century Bulgar/Bulgarians which is more than a generation or two given that the Bulgarian kingdom was established in 681.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hazaras

Why are the Hazaras of central Afghanistan 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 preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.125.136.79 (talk • contribs) 10:56, August 10, 2007 (ITC) – Please sign your posts!

The origin of the Hazara people is not clear; there are various theories, and the "Turkic" theory is not a strong contender in the field, for lack of evidence.  --Lambiam 10:47, 1 October 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)

why dont you remove pics from this page? why dont you leave us alone? you are not a writer, you cant be a writer either, you are just a poor vandalists. --88.233.22.230 13:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling me a "vandalist" is a personal attack, which is against Wikipedia policy. Please read No personal attacks. Why don't you instead react to the arguments I give above for not including the picture?  --Lambiam 17:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry to interrupt. I try to find a workable sollution. I have in no way sympathy for the Grey Wolves. Not at all. But I think that we should not hide the truth, how painful it might be. The far right Grey Wolves/ MHP do have some support in Turkey and they do have their proxies outside Turkey. Speculatively we can say that some source of finance is funding them. It is of course not true that a majority of Turks support them but they have some sympathy within the far right extremist circles in turkey and their supporters elsewhere. I think the picture of Turks with the sign of Grey wolvs should be accompanied by such a text that this phenomenon is not pervasive but neverthles does exist. --Babakexorramdin 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

But don't you agree that it is strange to put such information here even before it is even mentioned in any form in the Pan-Turkism article, a much more obvious target for such information? For the topic "Pan-Turkism" the ideology of MHP/Grey wolves is clearly relevant – although, in my opinion, of relatively minor importance. For the topic "Turkic peoples" by itself this is really a bit of a side issue, and trying to insert a proper explanation there carries the risk of giving it undue prominence.  --Lambiam 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it should be mentioned first in Panturkism article. --Babakexorramdin 09:16, 29 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)

The fact that the picture is from the Ardahan governorate does not make the dance Turkish. Better face it Ardahan is a town in which lived mainly Georgians, Armenians and Azeris, nowadays there live there Kurds too. Better name the things with the real names. --Babakexorramdin 09:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• The image caption says "Turkish dancers" in Ardahan, it does not state that dancers performing a "Turkish dance" in Ardahan. Regards. E104421 15:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And exactly for the reason you mentioned it is not appropriate for this section. It is misleading. By Turkish in this sense is meant citizens of Turkey and not necessarily the ethnic Turks.--Babakexorramdin 13:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Discuss the issue with the uploader of the image. Turkish people are defined more by a sense of sharing a common Turkish culture and having a Turkish mother tongue by citizenship. I do not understand why you go so ballistic with that. E104421 (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

simply because it is not a Turkish folk dance. it can be Armenian/ Azeri or even Georgian but not Turkish or Kurdish.I wonder why a Physician should have such ethnically intolerant and politically totaliran POVs? And why this aversion against anything Iranian? Relax man, most of Turks and Iranians like each other. Put your personal grudges aside. At least if you are a Turk! --Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How do I understand most of Azeri, Uzbek and others as I only speak Turkish?

only dispute! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.32.22 (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem? Azeri and Turkish are closely related, and to a large extent mutually intelligible. Uzbek is also a Turkic language, but in the group of East Turkic languages and therefore a more distant relative. If you only speak Turkish, Uzbek should be a bit harder to understand than Azeri.  --Lambiam 10:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversals

I removed these two sections [1], one of them completely devoid of content, the other pure OR, unsourced and poorly written, both of dubious relevance to the topic. My edit was reverted by an anon IP without even an edit summary. I'll be reinstating my edit soon unless a good explanation is forthcoming. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

stop the vandalism please Future Perfect at Sunrise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.152.191 (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

warning against removal of wikiproject Iran ffrom this page.

Strike-through text

It is very funny that someone with Grey Wolves poanturkist far right affiliation removes wikiproject Iran from this page. It is funy because at least some 24/30 percent of Iranians speak a Turkic language. Morever Panturkists and their anti/Iranianists such as Brenda Shaffer always complain that Iran does not pay enough attention to its Turkic culture as it should. Now when Iranians do pay attention to Turkic issues they remove it out of jelousy. THISIS VANDALISM AND IS DRIVEN BY HATRED--Babakexorramdin 14:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not "vandalism" in a strict sense, but certainly disruptive, POV-driven, against consensus and ultimately blockable. Let me know if he causes problems again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that WP removals can be driven by POV, but I would like to note for the record that such posts are a really thin line on WP:CIVIL. Babakexorramdin, such posts do not contribute to the creation of a healthy working environnement. cheers Baristarim 08:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know why are you deffending the vandalism or whatever of the anonymous author. I beleive I did a right thing to bring up the issue. --Babakexorramdin 11:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not defending any vandalism by a long shot, but two wrongs don't make a right: try to keep your posts or complaints as civil as possible please. This goes for everyone. That's all. Your post was way too agressive and not civil. A simple "Why did someone remove WP Iran template?" would have sufficed - no need to shout about someone named Brenda Shaffer or the supposed or probable motivations of an anon who did no more than remove a template in a talk page. You could have simply put it back yourself without even leaving a huge note about it, really.Baristarim 11:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No dear I meant something else and you know it better. That guy whom you supported wrote what da Fuck is Iran. Interestingly you supported him, came out of anger and tagged Khorassani Turkic, denying its name and call it Khorasani TurkiSh (like the grey wolves d0-) and now you are supporting Brenda Shaffer the main Anti-Iranianist pseudo-scholar. It all points to one direction: Anti-Iranianism. There is more to say but it suffices here. Sorry if you are not a far right/ anti-Iranianist, in that case you better could not deffend them/ act the way you did. --Babakexorramdin 10:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)--Babakexorramdin 10:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

the user 88.240.152.191

The user 88.240.152.191, whom I suspect to be the same as Baristarim should be watched carefully. I think that Grey wolves have a place to be mentioned but not more than that. As a Grey wolf/ far rigfht extremist he should also respect other people with other ideological backgrounds. Wikipedia should not become a place for propaganda. These Grey Wolves/ MHP have plenty of sites they do not need to hijack wikipedia. Wikipedia should remain as a reliable source of info rather than a propaganda machine. Either he/ his team respect this or he should be banned. --Babakexorramdin 07:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

old sport

can anyone help me and improve line — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.27.42 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The Turkish population is higher ,The Turkish population is inaccurate, not objective.

Turkey : Turkish people 55.400.000 (2006)[2]

57.089.000 (2011) [3]

55,580,000-59,650,000 (2015) [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.225.59 (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Gallery

The gallery of flags, foods, people, events, etc. should be removed.

1. Wikipedia discourages it.
2. There is no need to have this for its pictures (there is already a link to Commons with many more pictures)
3. There is no need to have this for navigation (the Turkic topics navigation template at the bottom of the page serves that purpose).

Shrigley (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Then why not rework some of the pics into the article sides, to show the apparent diversity of the groups involved. The Scythian 00:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• The article already has a higher picture to text ratio than is necessary for comfortable reading. People only need to click once more for any of the more specific articles, or to the gallery on commons, to see all of these pictures. Shrigley (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

ATILLA THE HUN

please add to images, he is turkic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.228.80 (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Helmet

It is stated in the article that "Turk" means "Helmet"! This is not true. "Türk" derives from "Türük" which is "Türe"+"ük" as in "Türeyik" in modern Türkish. "Türük" means "generation", "offspring", "descendant". The meaning section needs editing.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with him. Helmet means "tolga" in Turkish, and it is a protective head-covering worn by warriors. The name "Turk" must be much older than this kind of head-covering.

In old Turkish "Turuk (Türük)" = "Turk (Türk)". Türük means "türe(y)ik" or "türemiş" (to come into existance, to be derived) in modern Turkish. i. e. The people who are derived from something. "Something" maybe Gök Tengri (Gök Tanrı), maybe Wolf (Kurt). (78.162.0.88 (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC))

The "helmet" thing is now presented as something that is written in the 7th-century Book of Zhou. This is not implausible, but still lacks a reference. Why do people always insist on inserting unreferenced and poorly-understood material in this article? Does being "Turkic" somehow excuse you from adhering to project policy or something? See also WP:ENC. --dab (𒁳) 12:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Migration

Why is there no mention of the Armenian people who would already have been there when the Turks came down to what would become the western half of today's Turkey? JT (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the article is called Turkic peoples? I would naively expect the Armenians to be discussed in an article called Armenian people. --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

peoples vs. people

I have just noticed "Turkic peoples (Redirected from Turkic people)" ...isn't that wrong? The word a "peple" is plural already.

I suggest to swap the redirect/target, to rename the article to the name "Turkic people". arguably it s a panethnicity some groups like Tuvans have been left out though

--Franta Oashi (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

please consult an English dictionary. For example at wikt:people#Noun. --dab (𒁳) 11:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The population of Turkic people : Turkey 58-61 mil,Uzbekistan 26 mil,Iran 18-25 mil,Russia 12-14 mil,Kazakhstan 12,China 11-15,Azerbaijan 9 mil,European Union 5,8 mil ( Turkic citizens) + 3 mil european union citizens Turkic ,Turkmenistan 5 mil ,Kyrgyzstan 4,5 mil ,Afhganistan 3.5-4 mil ,Iraq 2.5 mil ,Tajikistan 1.5 mil,Usa 1 mil,other countries 5 mil

Turkey Turkish people population : 55-60 million and 58-61 million , % 76-81 [5],[6] should be re-written on the page Turkish population ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.142.219 (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Adji site

Hello, I cannot edit the article, but I must say that «Murad Adji's site» from External links section is a site of a very well-known fringe history writer from Russia—ru:Аджиев, Мурад Эскендерович. So I think the link is not appropriate. --Melirius (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I found out that the site was included in the article by anonymous user in 2005 [7] and have survived deletion of all these marginal concepts of Adjiev about Tenghri. Wow! --Melirius (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

«Is there anybody out there?» :) Tenghri is not presented now in English Wikipedia at all. --Melirius (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Azeri Turks in Iran

It is Estimated that Azeri Turks of Iran is about 32M + 10m in Azerbaijan, makes it about 40+m people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.238.85 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Any references?

here is Place for scientific. No place for the purposes of fascist Panturk. where is references?--Roohiran (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

İranian Turkic population : Iranian Azerbaijans 12-15 and 18-25 million [8], Turkic people Turkmens 1,328,000 [9] and Qashgai 1,500,000 ,,[10],Khorasani Turks 1,000,000 [11] ,Khalaj people,shahsevan,İranian kazakhs Turkic total population : 16 million -29 million ,% 22-39 ratio

File:Orkhon Inscription.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Orkhon Inscription.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Orkhon Inscription.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 April 2012

The "Demographics" section incorrectly spells "Moldova" as "Moldovia". Gagauz people are located within the country of Moldova, which is correctly spelled on the Gagauz Peoples page. There was a medieval principality called "Moldavia" but no such place as "Moldovia". Can we please correct the spelling of Moldova in the Demographics section?

Thanks. Nuakameba (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Map of Turkic people in Iran is disputed

I think such self-published maps should show the geography that has no controversy . This one , made by user Ebrahimi-amir , does not have consensus . As an example , in the northern regions of Gilan and Mazandaran , being the main minority depends on counting the local Gilaki and Mazandaranis as Persian language or not : that means if they are not Persians , then the mean majority is the Persians and not the Turkic language people . And about the Hamadan , that is not clear that the city is Turkic language or not ? Also about the Busher and Khozestan : who says there is a Turkic minority ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

1- The map is my own work based on "Geography and population of Turkish people in Iran" Alireza Sarrafi, Journal "Dilmaj", No. 2, 2004.

2- For Gilan province:

“ The non-Iranian languages include Azeri Turkish and some speakers of Gypsy (Romany, of Indic origin). Gīlakī is spoken by possibly three million people as a first or second language, and has had a budding literature and fledgling prose publications, including newspapers, but both Gīlakī and Ṭālešī are rapidly losing ground in many cities of Tavāleš due to heavy immigration of people from Azerbaijan.- GĪLĀN x. LANGUAGES -ranica ”

3- For Goletan province:

“ Turkmens constitute the majority population of the province ”

Official website for province

4- For Hamadan and others provinces:

“ Turkish is not limited to one province of Iran, as some maintain; rather, it is spread through every province and district, as we have said. The Turks" and Persians in Iran are not like two separate heaps, but like a chessboard during a game in which each player has penetrated the other's ranks and the black pieces have mingled with the white ones: Among the villages in which the inhabitants speak Persian, one sees villages in which the people speak Turkish, and many Persian cities, such as Tehran or Shiraz or Qazvin or Hamadan, are surrounded on all sides by Turkish villages or tribes; indeed, the people of the latter two cities understand both languages and speak both of them. ”

“ It is difficult to decide these days whether there, are more Turks than Persians. This can only be decided after a census is taken which distinguishes Turks from Persians, but the Iranian government has not to this day conducted such a census of its citizens or the population of its provinces, let alone distinguish Persian from Turk. His estimation generally inclines the author to the belief that the majority is Turks, but we will not speculate idly, but stick to the research we have conducted which we present below, with general and approximate figures.

1) Azerbaijan, which is the largest of Iran's four provinces,' and Iran's most important. It has a population of one and a half million souls, and the district of Khamse, which is generally populated, among its nomads and settled people, its villages and its cities, by Turks (along with a small minority of Mokri Kurds in Azerbaijan who speak Kurdish) who do not understand Persian until they are taught it by a teacher or an official.

2) Most villages and tribes in the provinces of Khorasan and Fars and the districts of Hamadan and Qazvin and NIraq and Astarabad are Turks, and travelers wandering the streets and alleys of Tehran have been astonished at seeing the villagers walking about speaking in Turkish. Some of these had migrated from Azerbaijan and Khamse in recent years and stay in the cities and no longer consider themselves to be from their land of origin, but from these cities.

3) As for the other parts of Iran, the majority of the people there are not Turks, but there are many among the tribesmen and villagers who are. An exception is the province of Kerman and the districts of Gilan, Mazandaran, Kurdestan, Lurestan, etc., in which there are no Turks except those who have migrated there recently, and they do not consider themselves to be true residents of these provinces. That Russian adage is true which says, "There is no reed without a knob." Indeed, Mazandaran has two Turkish tribes, along with their clans, and in Sari, the capital of that district, over twenty Turkish clans which have migrated from all over Iran and settled there, and they no longer speak Turkish. We have decided (as we have said) to explain nothing except what can be explained with Arabic numerals, and estimations and speculation are absolutely unsatisfactory.

”

Source: THE TURKISH LANGUAGE IN IRAN By Ahmed KASRAVI,latimeria: Prof. Dr. Evan Siegal, Journal of Azerbaijani Studies, 1998, Vol. 1, No 2, [6] , Khazar University Press , ISSN 1027-387

And now official source about Iranin languges:

“ On December 15, 2009, Iranian minister of education, Mr. Hamidreza Haji-Babayi, revealed that 70% of Iranian students were bilingual. What this means is that Farsi/Persian is the natural mother tongue to only 30% of Iranian students. In other words, 70% of Iran’s population is non-Persian. And just a few weeks ago, on 18th January 2012, during an official visit to Turkey, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi confirmed that 40 percent of Iran’s population spoke Turkish as their mother tongue. Despite this fact, the Iranian government along with the majority of Persian intellectuals, scholars and even human rights activists continue to disregard the country’s rich ethnic, racial and linguistic diversity. ”

Source: Language, Colonization and Decolonization: Examples from Iran Alireza Asgharzadeh.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I say these language maps do need a broad margin of consensus . As you know , some sources as Alireza Asgharzadeh is neither valid nor neuter . He himself has said that he is an activist with battle ground mind set about the ethnic minorities in Iran , and his points of views are not reliable . As you remember , the article about him was deleted because he was not a notable academic person . Iranica is a reliable source , but the sentence "but both Gīlakī and Ṭālešī are rapidly losing ground in many cities of Tavāleš due to heavy immigration of people from Azerbaijan." does not means the Azeri Turkish is the main minority language : as you can see , the Gīlakī is spoken by possibly three million people as a first or second language . That means the first or second language is Persian : The Persian challenges the Gilaki itself in Gilan , and if we consider Gilaki as a separate language from Persian , there is no doubt that the second language in Gilan would be Persian itself and not Turkic Azeri . More than that you know , Tavāleš is a western section of Gilan and not all of it . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

About the Kasravi quote , I can say although Kasravi is relatively reliable , but his saying about the population is not static and population changes are dynamic . The Kasravi's article is about the situation in 100 years ago and not now . This source is too old to be used for present time , because the population is migrating and the picture is not the same of 1910's . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For Mazandaran ( And not Golestan ) , I still say there are clusters of Turkic speaking population such as Behshahr , but still Turkic Azeri is not the second main minority language in Mazandarn ( As Kurdish is in use in Kelardasht and Kurdkouy , Blouchi in some suburbs of Sari (I mean Joki Mahaleh and etc ) and Persian itself in all regions of Mazandaran . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

1- Alireza Asgharzadeh is valid. If not be article about one person in wikipedia, it is not meaning that he/she is invalid. For Alireza Asgharzadeh you can see Talk:Azerbaijani people#Alireza Asgharzadeh's publication's are not reliable sources

2- Yes the Kasravi article is related to "100 years ago" and the Asgharzadeh and Alireza Sarrafi (and etc that you can see here) is releted to now. "Population changes are dynamic", and it is not any sing for Turkic people decline in Iran.

3- Also the official statements confirmed the documents.

The resource of about 100 years ago has shown that the Turkish population of Iran has been in the majority. Contemporary sources and official statements also emphasized the same point.))) Your opinion is respected but the wikipedia is written based on reliable sources.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You asked me to look at the discussion about the unreliability of Asgharzadeh ; indeed it seems that I myself was the main writer of that chapter and I still do believe an activist's view can not be mentioned as a reliable source of population of the geographical regions . And again if a writer of hundred years ago mentioned a geographical-population point of view , that is not reliable for present time . Official statements are pretty reliable , but where are they ?!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Questionable WP:OR Map

User:Ebrahimi-amir is creating many made-up and WP:OR maps. Dilmaj is a Turkish nationalist publication and its author Alireza Saffari has no reliable academic background or citations. As per standard of editing on Iranian-Azerbaijani pages, we only use Western independent sources which are not considered fringe. His arguments on "Greater Kurdistan" is red herring. Primarily because academic independent Western sources cannot be considered fringe, while maps like these are fringe. "Hafeznia" does not equate to WP:RS where-as Western sources are WP:RS. So User:Ebrahimi-amir creating a map based on Hafeznia is WP:OR.See here:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/iran.html

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_ethnoreligious_distribution_2004.jpg

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kurdish_lands_92.jpg

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_peoples_82.jpg

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Iran_Languages_lg.jpg

All of these are reliable sources...The following maps in Wikipedia are reliable:

Also use these maps (per Western sources):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_%282002%29.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kurden2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iran-Ethnicity-2004.PNG

all the maps created by User:Ebrahimi-amir are WP:OR based on his own research and cannot compete with University of Texas or Columbia Gulf Project or CIA Factbook. Dilmaj is not a reliable Western publication.

2) There are two issues, statistics and maps. The map by User:Ebrahimi-amir is WP:OR and his own work. It cannot be put in Wikipedia since it contradicts Western maps like these:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/iran.html

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_ethnoreligious_distribution_2004.jpg

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kurdish_lands_92.jpg

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_peoples_82.jpg

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Iran_Languages_lg.jpg

On the statement of Iranian minister, none of these statements claim "Turkic" is majority in Iran and this goes against virtually all reliable sources. However, in Wikipedia we use Western Sources over Iranian sources as Iranian officials have made statements that are not reliable and contradict each other. As per Kasravi article, that is using primary source without secondary references and the opinion of modern scholars who are alive takes precedence here.

Ervand Abrahimian, "A History of Modern Iran", Cambridge University Press, 2008. Page 18: "Communal Composition of Iran, 1900 Persian 6 million 50% Azeris 2.5 million Mazandaranis 200,000 Gilakis 200,000 Taleshis 20,000 Tatis 20,000"

If we are talking about Iranian government official sources, here is one with official Statistics, from the Iranian Embassy:

http://www.iranembassy.gr/per/aboutiran_intro.htm

65 درصد جمعيت ايران را فارس ها( از نژاد آريايي) تشكيل مي دهند. 20 درصد تركهاي ايراني(آذري)، 7 درصد كرد، 3 درصد عرب و 2 درصد لر مي باشند این هم آمار دیگری که به آمار ایران اشاره میکند:

اكثر ملت ايران فارس هستند، از نتايج سرشماري سال 1375 هـ .ش (1996م) درباره تركيب قومي ملت ايران اين برآورد‌ها حاصل مي‌شود: نسبت جمعيت فارس‌ها حدود 75-73 درصد جمعيت ايران است. آمار سرشماري سال 1365هـ .ش (1986م) نشان مي‌دهد كه 83/82 درصد مردم فارسي صحبت مي‌كنند و 86/2 درصد از آنها فقط فارسي را مي‌فهمند؛ همچنين 32/14 درصد از ملت ايران فارسي نمي‌دانند كه بخش عمده‌اي از آنان در مناطق عشايري و روستايي اقوام فارس زندگي مي‌كنند. آذري‌ها حدود 17-15 درصد و تركمن‌ها حدود 2/1 درصد جمعيت ايران را تشكيل مي‌دهند. 5-5/3 درصد از جمعيت به سومين گروه قومي، يعني كرد‌هاي سني و شيعه غرب كشور اختصاص دارد. پس از آنها به ترتيب قوم عرب در جنوب غربي كشور با حدود 3 درصد و قوم بلوچ در جنوب شرقي كشور با حدود 2 درصد از كل جمعيت قرار دارند." (نقل از: http://www.ghalibaf.ir/Default.aspx?tabid=79&language=fa-IR)

که اگر قابل مشاهده نیست دوستان میتوانند اصلش را در اینجا بیابند:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090623194528/http://ghalibaf.ir/Default.aspx?tabid=79&language=fa-IR (جعبه اول و دست راست از طریق بالا را کلیک کنند..)

این هم آمار سفارت ایران: Also available here: http://zamaneh.info/articles/892.htm#_edn

Here is another official statistic:

در مرداد 1370، هنگام صدور شناسنامه براي نوزادان، درباره زبان ٤٩ هزار و ٥٥٨ مادر در سطح كشور سوال مطرح شد كه نتيجه حاكي از سهم حضور ٥٣٬٨ درصدي زبان هاى غيرفارسي در ايران بود. بر اساس نمونه گيري مذكور، توزيع سهم هر يك از زبان ها (به درصد) به اين شرح بود: ٤٦٬٢ فارسي؛ ٢٠٬٦ تركي آذربايجاني؛ ١٠ كردي؛ ٨٬٩ لري؛ ٧٬٢ درصد گيلكي و شمالي؛ ٥٬٣ عربي ؛ ٢٬٧ بلوچي؛ ٠٬٦ تركمني؛ ٠٬١ ارمني؛ و ٠٬٢ ساير زبان ها ".

زنجاني‌، حبيب‌ الله‌، محمد ميرزايي‌، كامل‌ شاپور و امير هوشنگ‌ مهريار، جمعيت‌،توسعه‌، بهداشت‌ باروري‌، چاپ‌ دوم‌، تهران‌، نشر و تبليغ‌ بشري‌، 1379.

Zanjani, H.,Mirzai,M.,Shapur, K.,

This map also by Columbia University mentions the Iranian official Statistics in its box:

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Iran_Languages_lg.jpg

Be that it may, in Wikipedia we use Western sources and maps, as Iranian government itself is disorganized.

3) Alireza Asgharzadeh is unreliable. He is not even a Professor but simply a lecturer of undergraduate coures in York university. Here are some examples from his book and the following article: http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2007/issue4/jv11no4a2.asp Just sufficient examples from his book and article:

A)Alireza Asgharzadeh has quoted, and relied upon and mentioned Nasser Pourpirar who is a fringe theorist and fantasy-revisionist writer who believe the entire academically-recognized historiography of Iran is a "Jewish conspiracy" in pages 8, 30, 49-52, 55, 57, 62, 79-81, 178, 198, 206, 236 and 237 of his book. Yet Asgharzadeh says about Pourpirar: Naser Poorpirar (or Pourpirar) is a "very intelligent historian, and a very complex character." http://www.durna.eu/asgarzade_lisa.htm "intelligent historian" ?

B)’’A well-respected Azeri scholar Mohammed Taqi Zehtabi has published a two-volume history book that traces the indigenous history of Iranian Turks well over 6, 000 years back, challenging thus the legitimacy of the dominant group's denial of indigenous history for the Turks in Iran’’(pg 177).(Iran-Challenge of Diversity) Since when is Zehtabi and his theories respected in the academic world?

C)Asgharzadeh writes: ""The first wave of these Indo-European immigrants arrived in Iran around 2000 BC. Finding the area extremely rich and resourceful, they encouraged other Aryan nomadic groups to join them. Around 1200 BC these new immi¬grants had reached western and central parts of current Iran. The first Indo-European state was created in Iran in 550 BC through the disintegration and subsequent replacement of the Median dynasty by the Achaemenians (pg 8)"" Actually the Medes were Iranians, but since Zehtabi claims them as Turkish, Asgharzadeh does not mention this.

D) Note his personal opinion on Achaemenians: "http://web.archive.org/web/20071103211415/http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=11520 “Intruders to the Iranian Plateau, the Achaemenians had terrorized the region’s diverse populations for 228 years, from 559 to 331 BCE.” Originally here: http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=11520 (can be found with archives.com) But Also here: http://macedonian.blogspot.com/ He continues: “A critical interrogation of the Aryanist/Orientalist constructed image of the Achaemenians would be a great starting point to this end. The Iranian historian Naser Poorpirar has already dropped the bombshell by way of his seminal “Investigations into the Foundation of Iran’s History.” The onus now is on younger generations of scholars and historians to follow in the footsteps of Naser Poorpirar and expose the Aryanist historiography of Iran for the lies, deceptions, and misrepresentations that it is.”

E)He claims: “Around the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Azeri language and literature flourished under the rule of Shirvanshahs.” Not a single work in the Azeri Turkish (for Asgharzadeh Azeri=Turkish) language is from this era! Shirvanshah were not actually Turkish- speaking. They were a mixture of Iranic and Arabic people and were thoroughly Persianized by the 11th/12th century.( Barthold, W., C.E. Bosworth "Shirwan Shah, Sharwan Shah. "Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2nd edition). Indeed the Shirvanshah proudly claimed descent from Sassanids. http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2007/issue4/jv11no4a2.asp

F)“A glaring manifestation of this resurgent movement can be witnessed in powerful displays of strength, mobilization, and determination that have been taking place for the past decade in commemoration of die birth¬day of ancient Azeri hero, Babak Khorramdin.”(Iran-Challenge of Diversity, pg 19) Actually Babak was an “ancient Azeri hero” as an Azeri ethnic group cannot be talked about during the time of Babak. This is historical revisionism as noted by Schnirleman (see Babak Khorramdin article )

G)"The Iranian historian Naser Poorpirar argues that the Western Orientalists have intentionally misinterpreted the term Arya only to serve their own utopic/colonial agendas. He convincingly demonstrates that in the above-mentioned inscriptions the word Ariya meant nothing other than such derogatory notions as revolt (shouresh), and thug, rouge, gangster (sharir) and their derivatives (Poorpirar, 2000, pp. 217-219). Poorpirar maintains that nowhere in the inscriptions does the word Ariya have a racial or a linguistic connotation” Pourpirar is not a reliable author, nor even has a degree in history. For definition of Ariya see www.etymology.com.. He doesn’t even have a college degree. So it is Pourpirar's opinion vs "Western Orientalists"!!

H) ““In the Avesta there is a section titled "Videvdat" (Vendidad by some accounts) or the "Law against Demons." There can be little doubt that the Avesta had borrowed these segments from the rituals and traditions of indigenous peoples in the region. In ancient Azerbaijan's sharnanist tradition, all natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and storms, were regarded as demonic forces that sought to destroy humans and their means of livelihood.”” What source talks bout “ancient Azerbaijan’s” Shamanist traditions? He is implying that Avesta has borrowed from Turks whom he claims have 6000 years of history

I)Conclusion: Asgharzadeh’s work rely on Zehtabi who claims Medes, Summerians, Parthians, ELamites , Scythians, Manneans, Urartuians and all sorts of unrelated people as Turks. He also relies on Pourpirar (who has an article in Wikipedia) and calls him an intelligent historian. For example he backups Pourpirar’s claim that Persepolis was built by orientalists as mentioned above. Just a search in his book/articles online on Orientalists shows he is not mainstream. Also he is a lecturer in sociology in York University teaching undergraduate courses and he is a political activist. That is not sufficient from academic reliability, as he is not a Full Professor or well known scholar.Kurdo777 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

1- Which policy of Wikipedia says that "we only use Western independent sources which are not considered fringe." I made several map based on Iranian academics that show the map of Texas university have "fringe" and it is WP:SOAPBOX.

2- None of the sources that you mentioned are not official statistics about Iranian ethnics. Minister of education and Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi are official persons.

3- For Azeri Turks in Iran:

18.5 to 27 million

• Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z Approximately (2002e) 18,500,000 Southern Azeris in Iran, concentrated in the northwestern provinces of East and West Azerbaijan. It is difficult to determine the exact number of Southern Azeris in Iran, as official statistics are not published detailing Iran's ethnic structure. Estimates of the Southern Azeri population range from as low as 12 million up to 40% of the population of Iran - that is, nearly 27 million.

• Nationalism & ethnic politics, Volume 8, Issues 1-4 Authors Nederlands Instituut te Rome, Netherlands. Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk, Taylor & Francis, Publisher Frank Cass, 2002, Original from the University of Michigan, Digitized Jul 19, 2010

• Turkey-Iran relations, 1979-2004: revolution, ideology, war, coups and geopolitics Author Robert W. Olson, Publisher Mazda Publishers, 2004, ISBN 1568591144, 9781568591148, Length 284 pages (30 million).pp 76: "in Ankara, Johragani denounced 'Persian' chauvanism and their violation of human rights against the '30 million Azeri of Iran"

13-30 million

• Encyclopedia of language & linguistics , Volume 1 Authors, E. K. Brown, R. E. Asher, J. M. Y. Simpson; Edition 2; Publisher Elsevier, 2006; Original from the University of Michigan; Digitized Aug 10, 2010; ISBN 0080442994, 9780080442990
• Establishing security and stability in the wider Black Sea area: international politics and the new and emerging democracies, NATO Science for Peace and Security, Volume 26 of NATO science for peace and security series: Human and societal dynamics; Authors Peter M. E. Volten, Blagovest Tashev; Editors Peter M. E. Volten, Blagovest Tashev; Publisher IOS Press, 2007; ISBN 158603765X, 9781586037659

And you see other sources in Talk:Azerbaijani people#Number of Azeris in Iran. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

About the Turkic root for ancient civilizations you can see relationship between Turkic languages and Sumerian language in Julius Oppert, Adam Falkenstein and...

As Dr. Asgharzadeh has shown in Iran and the challenge of diversity:Islamic fundamentalism, Aryanist racism, and democratic struggles the Aryanist racism try to assimilation Azeri Turks in Iran , however, many studies show that the University of Texas map is distput.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

1) Western academic sources written by professors or CIA factbooks take primacy over non-academic and ethnic activist journals (dilmaj), as mentioned already.

2) There has not been any census done in Iran and anything said is speculation. Salehi's quote in Turkey has no weight as it is not backed-up by any census. It is simply a random quote by an Iranian official and politician making a knee-jerk statement and expressing his opinion in an attempt to increase ties with Turkey. It is not written and has no timeline. Whereas the embassy page is a written source. Iranian embassy is an official government site, so it is official: http://www.iranembassy.gr/per/aboutiran_intro.htm

It is an embassy, which by definition is an official source and shows the written official position. Of course there has not been any official census in Iran, constantly we rely on Western sources. So for example, Quoting Chehregani shows that 30 million is a nationalistic figure. The other authors you brought have no expertise in Iran. Here is a census done by a US organization which is in the ballpark with a margin of 3% error. http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf

But even if you disagree, you cannot put a map that is not made by experts (unlike University of Texas, CIA facbook) in the material.

4) "Turkic languages and Sumerian language in Julius Oppert, Adam Falkenstein and.." Sorry but those are dead scholars and it is not clear if any of them claimed Elamites/Sumerians as Turks. However, we use modern and alive scholars. Also there is no source provided for their name in the mentioned article and it is not mainstream scholarship. Also Medes are Iranians as the current wikipedia article shows.

Hardly reliable!: http://www.durna.eu/asgarzade_lisa.htm "Or weaving colourful narratives about “Takht-e Jamshid” or Persepolis, an Orientalist constructed Achaemenid palace that now local Iranian historians, architects and engineers prove with certainty that never existed?" Sorry but since when did Pourpirar become a Historian, Architect and Engineer while he lacks a high school diploma?

5) As for Asgharzadeh and assimilation, it's not relevant to this topic, and there could be valid sources discussing them. The partisanship of Asgharzadeh and his lack of reliability is made clear by the above. He claims orientalitsts created Persepolis. Sorry but that is false. The list above is sufficient. No scholar today claiming Sumerians/Elamites as Turks and Persepolis being created by orientalist can be seen as a serious scholar. He might have some other points that may or may not be valid, but he does not meet WP:RS on these topics, based on the above quotes.

6)The main point is this. The map you made does not meet WP:RS as it is from a monthly journal of Turkish nationalist magazine. University of Texas maps are used by academia and on these topics, Western sources are preferred over non-Western ones which are tainted by nationalism and mythology. CIA factbook takes precedence over the map you made and it doesn't matter if you find a contradicting map, as your source does not have the same WP:Weight.

7) On the numbers for 1900, Abrahamian is a recent academic source and Kasravi is not sure..nor is a modern source. One does not use numbers for 1900. Your maps are WP:UNDO, WP:OR and WP:Fringe and they contradict mainstream Western maps from modern academics. As a compromise, we can just not put any map in this article with regards to Iran if you have issues with the other maps, but you need to get a consensus in future for such edits. Also the second language in Gilan is clearly Persian, and third most-widely used language is Talyshi. Also, the Western regions of Kurdistan province are mainly Garousi Kurds. Fringe nationalistic claims have no place on Wikipedia. Same with official numbers, we use mainstream Western academic sources that are used for other Wikipedia articles and not cherry picked sources from nationalists and activists. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The head listing should be in alphanumeric order.

The article writes "Turkish, Azerbaijani, Chuvashes, Kazakhs, Tatars, Kyrgyz, Turkmens, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Bashkirs, Qashqai, Gagauzs, Yakuts, Crimean Karaites, Krymchaks, Karakalpaks, Karachays, Nogais", which should be "Azerbaijani, Bashkirs, Chuvashes, Gagauzs, Crimean Karaites, Krymchaks, Karakalpaks, Karachays, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Nogais, Qashqai, Tatars, Turkish, Turkmens, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Yakuts". The Turkish people shouldn't be listed in the first place. --Shamans of Tengri 18:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

inaccurate statistics of Iranian Turks

the sum of 30 000 000 Turkic person in Iran is only about the official populous status declared by the Persian government about the population of only Ardebil-eastern and western Azerbaijan and Zangan provinces, there are also many other Turkic accommodated areas, half of the Hamidan province, half of the Arak province, Ghashghaie Turks in SW Iran, a branch of Afshar tribe in Kerman, the KHORASANI Turks and ofcourse the least 50% of Tehran-Karaj's population are ethnic Turks, beside of the city of Astara and Anzali which are not mentioned at the map and Turkmen people in NE Iran, the sum of all these people makes the number of at least 35 000 000 Iranian Turks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.80.147.135 (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Maghrebi Turks

Maghrebi Turks are not mentioned in the Demographics section of this page. From Wikipedias own pages it is apparent that several million North Africans have at least partial Ottoman Turkish heritage. Is this not worth mentioning?

screwbiedooo 11/12/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

On "possibly Huns and the Xiongnu"

At least, such possibility is not mentioned in Turkic peoples, Islamic world in Britanica. Takabeg (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find such claim in Timur, Columbia Encyclopedia. Takabeg (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In Peter Golden's An Introduction to the History of the Turkic People, in the Xiongnu section (page 57) it says: "Their connection with later groupings that bore the name Hun in one or another form and may have been Turkic in speech or at least contained Turkic-speaking elements, has often been asserted, but never conclusively established." and later in page 67, "It seems very likely that at one point or another, the early Turkic people fell under the sway of the Hsiung-nu. Their role in the ethnogenesis of the Turkic peoples, however, cannot be assessed fully." So some people have made the claim, but it is not something proven. Hzh (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

turkish speaking people in iran

according to the interior minister of iran about 40% of the iranian people speak turkish language. could you please change this statistic. if you have no objections i will change this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTiHn2pUqNo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.205.236 (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

no-I am an Iranian Only 14% of people speak Azeri - but Azeris are of Iran and Persian culture and ethnicity Aryan blood here is Place for scientific No place for the purposes of fascist Panturk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roohiran (talk • contribs) 06:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

YouTube is not an appropriate location for the source--Roohiran (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 May 2013

Uyghur people.jpg

بۇغرا (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done. Request must in the form of "Please change x to y". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sunni Hadith on Turkic peoples

Hadith found in Sunni collections describe the physical looks of the Turkic peoples over 1,000 years ago as Mongoloid. They also describe them as infidels ans say that the day of judgement would not come until the muslims fight them. Another hadith tells the Muslims to leave them alone if they left the Muslims alone.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179 : Narrated by Abu Huraira Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair."

Sahih Bukhari : Read, Study, Search Online

http://sunnah.com/search/Turks

Turkic mongoloid looks

http://sunnah.com/urn/269590

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/56#141

http://sunnah.com/nasai/25#93

http://sunnah.com/abudawud/39#13

http://sunnah.com/abudawud/39#15

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/61#96

A hadeeth on Live and let live by the prophet muhammad, telling people to leave the kuffar (infidel) abyssinians (ethiopians) and turks alone if they leave you alone

http://sunnah.com/abudawud/39#12

http://sunnah.com/nasai/25#92

Other descriptions of Turkic peoples

The Volga-Ural region was inhabited by the Turkic Pechenegs who were being driven westward by their neighbors the Oghuz and would soon leave the area entirely. The Oghuz tribes extended from the middle and lower course of the Syr Darya (Yaxartes, Saihun) and Aral Sea region, where Khorezmian outposts kept watch on them, to Ispijab (Isfijab, Isbijab, identified with Sairam near present day Chimkent in the Kazakh SSR). Here they bordered with the Karluks. They nomadized as far north as the Irtysh and the Kimek confederation. The Karluk encampments stretched from Ispijab to the Ferghana valley and beyond in the east and extended to the Chu and Hi rivers in the north where the subject Chigil and Tukhsi tribes lived. The entire Oghuz-Karluk border with the Muslim world is described as being in a state of constant warfare, with the raids of the "Turks" reaching deep into Khorasan. South and east of the Karluks, and closely associated with them, were the Yaghma who extended towards Kashgar. (p. 348)

The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge University Press, 1990.

One of the issues that most occupied the travelers was the physiognomy of the Turks. Both mentally and physically, Turks appeared to the Arab authors as very different from themselves. The shape of these "broad faced people with small eyes" and their physique impressed the travelers crossing the Eurasian lands. In their accounts, they presented the Turks as people with an alien physical appearance. The anonymous author of Ḥudūd al-'ālam asserted that, "The Ghuzz have arrogant faces and are quarrelsome, malevolent and malicious." (p. 222-3)

« The Turks of the Eurasian Steppes in Medieval Arabic Writing », in : R. Amitai, M. Biran, eds., Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World. Leyde, Brill, 2005, pp. 201-241.

The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.

As there exists a great animosity between the Yamuds and Goklans they do not intermarry, although they reckon themselves of equally noble lineage. The same hatred is extended to the Tekke Turkomans, whom the Goklans and Yamuds, moreover, look upon as their inferiors, being, according to their genealogies, the descendants of a slave-woman, whilst they are the posterity of a free-woman. (p. 71)

The more intimate connection of the Astrakhan and Kazan Tartars with the Mogols can be traced in their features; with the Nogay it is less visible. In like manner, the Turkomans further off in the desert, and the Uzbeks of Khive, have more of the Mogol expression than the Turkomans who encamp near the Persian frontier. The frequent intercourse of the Nogay, in latter years, with the Cherkess, seems to have improved their race; and notwithstanding the enmity that exists between the Turkomans and the Persians, it is still not unlikely that their close vicinity should have produced on the former a similar effect in a lapse of several centuries. The fact we have seen, that the Turkomans marry Persian women, when they take them as prisoners. The Turkoman women are, like the men, tall, and when young, well-shaped; their faces are rounder than those of the men; the cheek-bones less prominent; the eyes black, with fine eye-brows, and many with fair complexion; the nose is rather flat; the mouth small, with a row of regular white teeth. In a word, a great number of the younger part of the community might be reckoned as fair specimens of pretty women. (p. 73)

Bode, C.A. "The Yamud and Goklan tribes of Turkomania". Journal of the London Ethnological Society, vol. 1, 1848, pp. 60-78.

05:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What is your point with "hadiths said about turkic mongoloid look" stuff? It's not a scientific classification you know that right? Don't tire yourself so much. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Hadith Sharif instructing to leave the Turks alone should also be included in the article, since there are numerous hadiths on contact starting with an initial fight. There is no need to include all the hadiths in the article either. The fact remains Turks did not resist Islam much, as it fit to their former monotheistic religion, and soon took over the standard of Islam from the Arabs and served Muslims for more than a millenia. -Dominator1453 (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong caption under the photograph of Belukha peak

Belukha peak is a indeed a peak of the Altay range which streches east into Mongolia, but this mountain is located far from Mongolia's territory, on the border between Russia and Kazakhstan (https://maps.google.co.il/maps?q=belukha&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x42b871e05cb9cde5:0x5a04d73cf8e4835b,Gora+Belukha&gl=il&t=p&ei=P8ruUf6NLcHYswaTooCoCg&ved=0CC0Q8gEwAA) Amirabc (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Cyprus

Cyprus is by a vast majority a Greek inhabitant island both historically (for more than 3 thousand and 500 years) and present, an independent and recognized state by the whole world and a member of the United Nations and the European Union. Is not turkey...Lol!!! I just can imagine the rest of the mistakes....

İ cant understand why all Greek people are racist against Turks there İS a country named Northern Cyprus Turkish Republic and its a Turkic country not Greek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeynel446 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A hasty generalization to say all Greek people are racist against Turks. The issue is that there is no officially recognized country called "Northern Cyprus". The so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is an occupied region of the Republic of Cyprus. Yes, Cyprus has both a Turkish and a Greek population. That is not being disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.255.50.203 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

hungarians are turkic?

The article states that Turkic peoples includes Hungarins. I thought Hungarians were a Finno-Ugric people? 192.0.173.58 (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Hungarians are not Turkic. They are Finno-Ugric. Mmabbas786 (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Demographics Historical population: from turkish people the Egyptian Turks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkmen oglu (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Then Székelys are not Turkic too! However the Hungarians Finno-Ugric origin is questionable. 94.21.23.190 (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hungarians speak a Finno-Ugric language. Ithinkicahn (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate and a little naive that some, mainly western influenced peoples, are still tied to theories brought forth from the middle 19th century based on political platforms that the Hungarian origins are not of Turkic (i.e asian/eastern) origin. History based on all factors including customs, tools, script, language, religion, archaeology, anthropology, genetics is more sound than a theory that was developed on a political platform and also based on a few words and phrases. Hungarians along with most people from Turkic/ Ural-Altaic origins (inlcuding Koreans) have held that Hungarians (Magyars) have always been part of the Turanian family, regardless of what is being held propagated since the mid 19th century.I find that Wiki tends to lend to this trend. ---- Anonymus.

This page is only for discussing suggestions for article improvement. Are you saying Koreans consider Hungarians to be their distant relatives? If that is so you should be able to confirm that with a cite. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Anonymus (sic) but you are way off course with what modern linguistics and historical views are. Hungarians are not Turks in any way/shape/form, although proximity has allowed for loanwords in both Magyar and Turkic.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

External links

in section External links web:* turkicworld is a panturk web that its information is not true

for example sumer is a aryan calture but in this web say a turk calture or information like this please delete this web--Roohiran (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC) --Roohiran (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it and a few others. It failed WP:EL as its a personal website. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Chinese Name for the Turks

http://www.jstor.org/stable/597981

09:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Karasuk culture in the lead section

Based on the main article of Karasuk culture and its referenced content, I don't see any valid point to insert it on the lead section of this article and call it as "Turkic culture". It should be removed or needs an exact clarification. --Zyma (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well you're obviously cannot be read. The Karasuk Culture is a Turkic culture descended from Afanasevo and Adronovo. If you click that article, you can see it's explained.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2014

Tuvan live not only in Russia, but also in Mongolia. 78.179.126.184 (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

About Iranian-Saka Connection With Xiongnu.

There is no specific connetcion between Xiongnus and Sakas. Most of scholars considered they were a various etnic group. Not specificly saka, yenisei, mongolic etc. So, this sentence: "however, some scholars see a possible connection with the Iranian-speaking Sakas." is pretty misleading. I'am suggesting this should be fixed. This sentence is quite enough: "Some scholars believe they were probably a confederation of various ethnic and linguistic groups." Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"There is no specific connection between Xiongnus and Sakas.". That is your opinion. Beckwith states, "Among other possibilities, could correspond to a form of the name of the Northern Iranians, eastern forms of which --Saka, Sakla, and so forth -- are recorded in several guises in Chinese accounts..."

Also, according to Beckwith, "The case has been made for the Hsung-nu having been Iranians (Bailey 1985)(Pulleyblank 2000) (Vovin 2000)", page 404. There is more on pages 404-405, but seeing how you blantantly ignored Bailey and Doerfer in the Cosmo source, there is no reason to waste my time typing it.

"Bailey (1982, 91-2, 2009, 25-41) views them as Iranian, as does Harmatta (1997)". -- Courts and Court Culture in the Proto-urban and Urban Developments among the Pre-Chinggisid Turkic Peoples, Peter Golden, Turko-Mongol Rulers, Cities and City Life, ed. Michael R. Drompp and Devin DeWeese, 31.

"Bailey on the other hand, viewed the Hsuing nu as Iranian speakers...", from your own "source"!, Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History, Nicola Di Cosmo, page 164.

"This is pretty misleading". Not in the least bit. This is published academic fact. What is misleading is your editing. You have blantantly cherry picked your information from the Cosmo source while ignoring the entire basis of what pages 163 and 164 state![12] You clearly ignored this, "...while Doerfer denied the possibility of a relationship between the Hsiung-nu language and any other known language and rejected in the strongest terms any connection with Turkish or Mongolian, page 164. Since you have brought no viable reason for its removal, not to mention your insincerity with source(s), I can only presume your removal is based on your own personal bias. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. First of all, keep yourself your personel opinions about me. I'am not the subject here. This is not my "idea." Sources says(strongly), possibly Sakas include in Hiung-nu tribes. That mean Sakas has no special position on Hiung-nu tribes. Get it? thanks.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Which means this is your opinion, nothing more. I have listed facts that Hsiung-nu could be Saka and multiple sources stating Iranian/Iranian speaking, which you have blantantly ignored. Whereas you have simply continued your with own personal rhetoric with no academic backing. Oh, and your editing is the "subject" since you have chosen to ignore information in your own source! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Your insists on "personel opinion" stuff, does not change anything. And please stop commenting about me. You can't understand the point, most of source says "They were a confedaration." This is an academic fact. You're ignoring this simple fact and deforming sources Mr.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It changes everything. You have cherry picked information from at least one source(Cosmo) in order to push a particular POV(your opinion), intentionally ignoring what the Cosmo sources states in total(Doerfer). You can bring nothing to support your opinion whereas I have shown that Beckwith, (Bailey 1985), (Pulleyblank 2000), (Vovin 2000), and Harmatta (1997) all state Iranian/Saka. Making puerile statements like, "deforming sources", only proves how desperate you are to remove any and all statements of Iranian/Saka, especially when I have posted quotes from said sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Funny, you still doing same thing. No more comment. I told my concerns up side. Now wait for other users' opinions. Regards.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I would just say that if there are differences in academic opinions, then we should present the disagreement as clearly and as succinctly as we can without taking any position on the argument. Therefore I think that it is better not to remove sentence, but to write in a way that indicates there are differences in opinions. There are too many uncertainty with Hsiung-nu and other tribes of the early period anyway to make any definitive statements on them. Hzh (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, with the obvious caveats that we must be careful not to interpret sources or to give certain positions undue weight. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

We can't write it to encyclopedia because one guy mentioned it once. It's not verified, and sholud be fixed. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

altaic people

why it says nothing about altaic peoples Turkish people is one of them, and they have a long history backwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.191.35 (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Bulgaria is missing on the country bar.

Acording to wikipeadia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Bulgaria there are 600.000 turks in bulgaria worth to enter the list thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkishpat (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2014

During the Middle Ages, various Turkic peoples of the Eurasian steppe were subsumed under the identity of the "Scythians".[57] Between 400 CE and the 16th century, Byzantine sources use the name Σκΰθαι (Skuthai) in reference to twelve different Turkic peoples.

even though it's unimportant, the right spelling of Skuthai (more correctly Skythai) in Ancient and Byzantine Greek is Σκύθαι, not Σκΰθαι (ύ, not ΰ), and in Modern Greek Σκύθες (Skythes). 91.140.68.224 (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2014

46.1.58.81 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Copypaste of entire article removed
As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article into the request, you'll break navigation on the talk page, and another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2014

Source falsification in this edit: diff (Iran, infobox). Please revert to correct version that matches with the cited source. Also send a warning to this pov-pusher user. --188.158.93.255 (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC) 188.158.93.255 (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Already done -They undid themselves with this edit. They were suggested on their talk page to not make test edits on Wikipedia article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2014

Remove these persons from the infobox:

• Attila, Attila was Hun and there is no strong theory about 100% Turkic origin of Huns. Huns were several united nomadic tribes of different origins. See the related articles.
• Al-Farabi, His Turkic origin is disputed in his article and there is no clear or reliable source for it. It's just a suggestion that he may had a Turkic lineage/bloodline. Compare it with his Persian/Iranic origin. Per WP:Weight, the infobox isn't a right place for him and Atilla.

188.158.76.230 (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Attila and Al-Farabi were added by a permanently blocked user and have been removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes to statistics by Shqipërisëtonluk

User:Shqipërisëtonluk (talk) has made changes to statistics.[13] The statistics he/she changed have citations, let us check by sampling:

Country	Old version	Shqipërisëtonluk's edit	Citation	What the citation says	Comment
Turkey	55,000,000	50,000,000	"Turkey". The World Factbook. Retrieved 9 February 2013.	Population: 81,619,392 (July 2014 est.) Ethnic groups: Turkish 70-75%, Kurdish 18%, other minorities 7-12% (2008 est.)	70% of 81.6m = 57.1m, 75% of of 81.6m = 61.2m
Uzbekistan	26,000,000	24,000,000	"Uzbekistan". The World Factbook. Retrieved 13 May 2014.	Population: 28,929,716 (July 2014 est.) Ethnic groups: Uzbek 80%, Russian 5.5%, Tajik 5%, Kazakh 3%, Karakalpak 2.5%, Tatar 1.5%, other 2.5% (1996 est.)	Assuming Uzbek, Tajik, Kazakh, Karakalpak and Tartar are included as Turks, 80% + 5% + 3% + 2.5% + 1.5% = 92%. 92% of 28.9m = 26.6m
Russia	12,009,969	7,009,969	ru:Этно-языковой состав населения России	Turkic Group (Тюркская группа) population in 2010: 12,011,825	The source explicitly says 12,011,825.
Kazakhstan	12,000,000	9,000,000	"Kazakhstan". The World Factbook. Retrieved 13 May 2014.	Population: 17,948,816 (July 2014 est.) Ethnic groups: Kazakh (Qazaq) 63.1%, Russian 23.7%, Uzbek 2.9%, Ukrainian 2.1%, Uighur 1.4%, Tatar 1.3%, German 1.1%, other 4.4% (2009 est.)	Assuming Kazakh, Uzbek and Tatar are included as Turks, 63.1% + 2.9% + 1.3% = 67.3% (Or 68.7% if Uighurs are also included). 67.3% of 17.9m = 12.1m (68.7% of 17.9m = 12.3m)

It seems to me that the changes User:Shqipërisëtonluk has introduced are vandalism, in that he/she is changing cited date to numbers not supported by the sources being cited.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Albanians in Turkey are an ethnic community and not Diaspora 3,009,969 Albanians in Turkey--Shqipërisëtonluk (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

With those that have only partial Albanian ancestry and the Turkified ones the number is about 1,300,000, most of whom do not speak Albanian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shqipërisëtonluk (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

According to estimates commissioned in 2008 by the National Security Council of Turkey (Milli Güvenlik Kurulu) some 2,000,000 Turkish citizens are of Bosniak ancestry as mainly descended from Bosniak emigrants in the 19th and early 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shqipërisëtonluk (talk • contribs) 14:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources. When numbers are quoted in Wikipedia they are meant to have a citation with them. The numbers you changed were like that. You changed the numbers so that they did not match up to the sources being cited. You left the citations so it looked like the sources being cited supported your numbers. They do not.

If you have other sources that suggest other numbers, please discuss them on the talk page, giving proper sources for your suggestions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

ethnic Circassians of whom about 4 million live in Turkey

Assuming Circassians , Albanian, Bosniak , Pomaks and Gorani and Ingush Rutul Tabasaran Dargwa Laz Lak Tsakhur Adyghe Aghul Avar Arab Kabarday Vallahades Chechens Kurd are not included as Turks ethnic Turkish is 8,300,000

[14]"Türkiye'deki Kürtlerin sayısı!" (in Turkish)

It seems to me that the changes Toddy1 has introduced are vandalism--Shqipërisëtonluk (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

All I have done is to check your changes, and found that the figures you put in are not supported by the sources that were cited, whereas the previous figures were. I reverted accordingly. As for your posts on this talk page; I have no idea what they are meant to be relevant to.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Toddy1. User Shqipërisëtonluk's sourceless and baseless edits seemed to me as a vandalism and clear POV. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014

How did you reach this one?! Original research or your own estimate? I mean:

• Infobox: Regions with significant populations: Iran: 14,000,000-25,000,000
• In the cited sources (The World Factbook): 18% of 80,840,713 (July 2014 est.) = 14551328.34 1
• According to the reference,how you reach to 14,000,000-25,000,000?! Please fix and edit that.

46.143.214.22 (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed correction. The data for Iran were not changed by Shqipërisëtonluk so I had not bothered to check that one.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have now implemented your correction. Thanks for spotting the error.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

About old Turkic characters

There should be the names of Al farabi, Ahmad yassawi, Ulugh beg, Ali Kushji, Jalaldin Mingburnu, Mahmoud of ghazni, Alp Arslan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O.Turani (talk • contribs) 05:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Charles Bronson was Turkic ref?

Charles Bronson was Turkic ref? where is the ref for this? --Inayity (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what his total ancestry is, but he said in interviews in the Seventies that he had Native American blood in his family.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice try by a POV-pusher: Attila in infobox

1. First he did this on Attila article: [15]
2. And now Attila on here! [16]

This editor inserted his POV on many articles and his edits are only consisted of POV-pushing and disruptive changes to weighted contents. --188.158.96.246 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Attila was a Turkic person. No problem. Madyas (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Bad organize photos

More photos is related to turks in turkey-And ethnic Turks from West to East are diverse. More photos top Turk people paper represents the Turkish people instead of all nations turks. for example there is no face photo of Chuvashes, Kazakhs, Tatars, Kyrgyz, Turkmens, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Bashkirs, Gagauz, Yakuts, Crimean Karaites, Krymchaks, Karakalpaks, Karachays, Balkars, Nogais

So selected photos that The Turks are all white And they have little dependence on East Asia and Mongolia. Pictures useful for Turkish people page Please stop the deliberate organized to show a wrong impression of the Turks nations. photos of top Turk people are Exactly the same with Turkish people page And this point is apparent technical error.

. .Link both to compare and decide: [turkish people] [Turkic peoples]

thank you217.219.24.215 (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

more turks in russia

in this wiki article stays, that in russia are only around 13 million turkic people in russia ...

this is too less ...

truth is ... there are more turkic people in russia ... i make an estimate/valuation, that between 25.000.000 and 75.000.000 turkic people live in russia ...

all "russian jews" are ethnic turkic people ... like khazars, kipchaks, turkic mountain jews ... the khazars converted jewry (arthur koestler, the 13 tribe) ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.101.10 (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad ISBN

Because they are causing a Checkwiki error #70: "ISBN with wrong length", I removed the ISBNs from the entry:

Mukhamadiev A., "Turanian Writing", in "Problems Of Lingo-Ethno-History Of The Tatar People", Kazan, 1995, ISBN 5-201-08300 (Азгар Мухамадиев, "Туранская Письменность", "Проблемы лингвоэтноистории татарского народа", Казань, 1995. с.38), ISBN 5-201-08300, (in Russian)

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN or WorldCat id on the Internet. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Lotfi Zadeh

Lotfi Zadeh should be added to the pictures too. He founded fuzzy logic and is an important figure in history of logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.239.51.1 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancy

The European Union is listed as one region for the populations while Cyprus, a member state, has a separate listing. Either that figure should be merged into the EU (of it is not included already) or the EU should be marked as excluding Cyrpus. If North Cyprus is meant then this too should somehow be explained. --OJ (TALK) 21:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Demographic war Turkey and Greater Middle East

Kurdish population and demographic war Cia, Ümit Özdağ the required data Cie shaped American policy and political deception demographic data on Turkey,[17]

American cia data is not objective , political

Turkey cia data by year:

1985 : Turkey ratio of 85%, Kurds rate of 12%, 3% other groups

1991 : Turkey ratio of 80% cure rate was 17%, 3% other groups: Notes ratios ranging american politics is changing with the collapse of the USSR

1993 : Turkey ratio of 80% cure rate was 20%, 0% other groups: Note: Increasing rates of PKK terrorism is changing

2009 : Turkey ratio of 70-75%, Kurdish rate of 18%, 7-12% other groups: Note in 2009, lived to be asked to put forward Kurdish and other ethnic structure, respectively (novel-Georgian-gotta-Arab Circassian

Turkey really research data : Language Turkish % 84,54 ,% kurdish 11.,97, % 3-4 other Turkey Demographics data

Iran demographics change year :1982-1989 , 1994-2011 2012-2014

Greater Middle East :Syrian Syrian Civil War [18] Refugees of the Syrian Civil War [19] ,Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant[20] ,Libyan Civil War [21], — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.41.167 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia

New research and useful peer-reviewed article on PLOS Genetics.--188.158.123.1 (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)