Talk:Turkic peoples/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

bulgaria?

where is bulgaria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.44.27.254 (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Bulgarians are not Turkic nor is Bulgaria a Turkic speaking country. Akmal94 (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Non-information information

I've been somewhat disappointed by the failure of Wikipedia articles which are about various peoples, to distinguish between the words "language" and "culture."

A language is not a culture.

Extensively describing what language a people speak gives very little useful information about what their culture is. Typically, all these articles say is "with a common culture," and leave it there. That is non-information. Giving an extensive description of languages which frankly, only linguists would be interested in, is in my opinion far removed from what most people want to learn about the meaning of the name of a nation, or group of peoples. I feel it gives a false impression of being "academic" while failing to provide any actual information. This seems to be common to most or even all of these types of articles - on Wikipedia.

173.2.154.46 (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2016

The Ethno-linguistic aflication of the Panonnian Avars is unknow,therefore thy shouldn't be listet here 2003:57:E36E:3859:A5A2:D32E:360F:2614 (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Old Tibetan durug(gu), or Assyrian?

Is the original reference to durug(gu) in the Old Tibetan language, or in Akkadian? I don't have the source texts, its title "The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726-722 BC), Kings of Assyria" by the Assyriologist Hayim Tadmor suggests these are Mesopotamian references. Could anyone clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.129.232 (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2017

Remove Pannonian Avars from this paragraphs because they were not turkic:"Later Turkic peoples include the Pannonian Avars, Karluks (mainly 8th century)" 188.158.100.125 (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Race

Could the article clarify the race or races of this group of people? The article called it an ethnic group, but across the group, the peoples appear to belong to different human races. 2A00:23C5:C101:5800:C17D:948C:B624:5096 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the lead section or not?

• The Turkic peoples are a collection of ethnic groups that live in central, eastern, northern, and western Asia as well as parts of eastern Europe. They speak languages belonging to the Turkic language family. They share, to varying degrees, certain cultural traits and historical backgrounds. The term Turkic represents a broad ethno-linguistic group of peoples including existing societies such as... --Wario-Man (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Further suggested reading: Race (human classification). The concept of "race" went out the door with the Continental drift theory. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Exhaustive list of ancient and medieval states WP:UNDUE for lead

What is the point of such an exhaustive list for the WP:LEAD? Aside from creating one slab of a paragraph which doesn't provide the reader with any insight into 'Turkic peoples', appending "... and as well as ancient and medieval states such as Dingling, Bulgars, Alat, Basmyl, Onogurs, Shatuo, Chuban, Göktürks, Oghuz Turks, Kankalis, Khazars, Khiljis, Kipchaks, Kumans, Karluks, Tiele, Turgeshes, Yenisei Kirghiz, and possibly Huns, Tuoba, and Xiongnu." (without going into the grammatical problems), how does it qualify anything aside of an enormous list for the reader to work through?

Current/existing groups are one thing, but this is information for the body of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Iryna, you have good point. Iranian peoples has similar issue. The lead should be something like the leads of Germanic peoples and Slavs. Mentioning modern/current ethnic groups in the lead section and moving ancient/medieval groups to the article's body (e.g. history or list). --Wario-Man (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to agree. Looks more like an inventory. Also some of those items are better generally known than others with smaller figures. Best to pick four of five maximum of the most notable (..."among others") and list the remainder later in the article. --Coldtrack (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

PS. I would stick to nation states (i.e. Turks, Azerbaijanis, and ex-Soviet nation states of Central Asia). The rest consist of mainly minorities and extinct nations. Those I feel can go onto a separate list. --Coldtrack (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed all around. Wario-Man, you read my mind when pointing out the Germanic and Slavs articles. Earlier examples of those articles were testimonials to the 'everybody wants to get into the act' listings before being logically trimmed to serve the reader. I think that limiting the lead to examples of contemporary nation-states should take precedence as you've suggested, Coldtrack. There are a lot of stateless Turkic groups (and a heck of a lot of defunct Empires and states), but those are most certainly for a relevant section in the body. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Check the new revision. Coldtrack edited the lead and moved them to a new section. I did some minor changes to it. Feel free to edit it if it needs more edits and improvements (both the lead and the new section "Ethnic groups"). --Wario-Man (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Turkic peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.devplan.org/Ecosos/BOOK/SEG-2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111231644/http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action%3Bjsessionid%3D9D641F96F47DDD54F28B8F8B07FFF815?newsId=233911 to http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action%3Bjsessionid%3D9D641F96F47DDD54F28B8F8B07FFF815?newsId=233911
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221113517/http://newasia.proj.hkedcity.net/resources/25/beishi/index.phtml?section_num=099 to http://newasia.proj.hkedcity.net/resources/25/beishi/index.phtml?section_num=099
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/cevatturkeli/ctbb-his1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/egfroth1/Pechenegs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922063332/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Timur to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Timur

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2017

people Turk in Iran other than 35m

pls edite Shahabas10 (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This article needs some corrections

No such thing as Ottoman Turks or Seljuk Turks because the term Ottoman and Seljuk refer to a dynasty like Habsburg or Bourbon. The founders of the Ottoman Empire were Oghuz Turks. 77.166.30.3 (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Redman19 (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You should update the population. Nottroll (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Population update

All of the Turkic republics have improved so far. Keep it updated Nottroll (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Turkmen

change ((Turkmen)) to ((Turkmens|Turkmen))

Done Minor edit only for disambiguation. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Turks vs Mongols

This sentence: "the general population (Turks) as well as the aristocracy (Mongols)" is kind of confusing. It's not clear when the terms Turks & Mongols started to become different. Perhaps the article does not explain this clearly beforehand.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Turkic peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091220225254/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp7/ot_sogd_trade_20041201.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp7/ot_sogd_trade_20041201.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030073844/http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/2nd_silkroad3.pdf to http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/2nd_silkroad3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111130074300/http://zzs.chd.edu.cn/kjqk/xbjzgcxyxb-shkx/xbjz2006/0603pdf/060316.pdf to http://zzs.chd.edu.cn/kjqk/xbjzgcxyxb-shkx/xbjz2006/0603pdf/060316.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2018

The list of countries with Turkic People should also include Pakistan.Turkic tribes practicing Zoroastrianism arrived in Gilgit during the 7th century, and founded the Trakhan dynasty in Gilgit.

https://www.pakpedia.pk/doc/Gilgit_Baltistan#subtopic-Turkic-tribes https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/print_pk.html Mousalman (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Pakapedia is apparently user-generated content. We generally don't accept other 'pedias as sources for articles on this project. The CIA World Factbook, on the other hand, is a reliable source, but all it appears to say is: "The area underwent successive invasions...from the Persians ...and Turks" which is not a source saying that there is a current Turkic population. That all said, the article does, in fact, include Pakistan: Karlugh Turks are also found in the Haraza region and in smaller number in Azad Kashmir region of Pakistan. Just because something is not in the infobox does not mean it is absent from the article body. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

Hi there, it seems this section in the infobox is a bit of a wild collection of sources with original research. First of all, wherever the CIA world fact book is given as source, I cannot find a number for "Turkic" people. When looking at the annotations for the references attributed to Turkey and Kazakhstan it seems the editor has used some of the CIA data, then made a few assumptions and calculated what he thinks may be Turkic people. That's WP:OR. For Russia, they use a Russian Wikipedia article, which itself does not provide proper sources for the numbers. Most of this should be removed unless it can be sourced. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: Sorry but this edit is verging on vandalism. You have removed several Turkic-majority nations simply because you don’t like the calculations. That is a destructive approach which cannot be accepted. How on Earth can you suggest that the majority of Turkish people of Turkey should not be included? Please restore the numbers and add disputed tags or else we will have to request admin intervention. You also need to review your understanding of OR, because accurate calculations based on sources are not original research. 90.202.156.195 (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my edits as being fully in line with the OR policy. If you can add sources the clearly state the populations of "Turkic people", you are welcome to add this. Please familiarise yourself with the following passages on original research:

This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

and

Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.

Therefore, calculations used to derive an assumed value are OR. I'm happy to restore the value for Turkey with a tag that further references are needed, however the other cases are less clear. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: Thank you for restoring the Turkey figures but you need to restore the others too. Disputed tags are sufficient for all of them. Your understanding of WP:OR has missed WP:CALC which permits routine calculations. If the numbers are wrong, then dispute them but please don’t remove entire swathes of people based on your interpretation of policy. The Turkish, Azeris (of both Azerbaijan and Iran), Turkmen (mainly in Turkmenistan), Kazakhs (mainly Kazakhstan), Kyrgyz (Kyrgyzstan), and Uighurs (Chinese Xinjiang) are significant portions of the Turkics, and you do Wikipedia a disservice by claiming the third largest group is in the US.

I don't think CALC applies here as this is not a "simple" calculation. It requires assumptions to be made, which in some cases may swing the needle by around 10% of the total population of that country. The most common assumption that the previous editor made was to assume that "other" minority ethnic groups are not Turkic. That's a bold statement.

You seem to be very involved in this topic and know a lot about WP editing. May I invite you to register for an account to work on this article. I'm certainly happy to work with you to improve the article as it definitely needs some TLC, especially when it comes to statistics. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: Thank you for the edits which have addressed my concerns. I’ve previously had an account from which I retired. I’m happier as an anonymous user at the moment. Thanks. 2A02:C7D:3C1A:7300:885F:F5E3:C310:9E44 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

If anything, you could remove the Turkic_peoples#Minorities_in_Turkic_Countries section because it is entirely unsourced and not really relevant to the topic. 2A02:C7D:3C1A:7300:7567:71D1:758C:A3ED (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Then vs Than

In the first paragraph, "more diverse then the others" should be "more diverse than the others". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.241.250.130 (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

done. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of the Turk

I suggest that the word is one form of широкъ mentioning broad-shouldered people and Fars could be find in another language means slender or slim.
This is my suggestion and I did not adopted it from any resources. 

Amir Arab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.86.153.173 (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the African Union (free).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of the Turk

I suggest that the word is one form of широкъ mentioning broad-shouldered people and I found fars in another language means slender or slim and it refer to a bar shape oject.
This is my suggestion and I did not adopted it from any resources. 

Amir Arab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.86.153.173 (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup

Can anyone explain the nature of the table listed here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples#Minorities_in_Turkic_Countries

It's listed under Turkey, but clearly has demographics far beyond that of Turkey. On top of that, "Assyria" is neither a country nor a region within any country, nor a disputed country. So how can there be 15,000 Turkic people in Assyria?

And why are there two rows for "Kurdistan", and neither one says Iraqi Kurdistan, and what is the other supposed to be? It seems like this article requires cleanup. DA1 (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

After going through the article, it's a complete mess. There is an entire section full of Arabic quotes from Hadith in violation of MOS:QUOTES and WP:DUEWEIGHT: overuse of quotes, and redundant quotes. And these quotes aren't historical accounts but rather "prophecies", or opinionated ramblings. Articles on other ethnic groups aren't filled with these texts. The article on Jews isn't filled with the Hadith prophecies about Jews, nor is the one about Indian peoples filled with Hadith prophecies about India, and so forth. Two of these Hadiths aren't even specifically aimed at "Turkic people" per se but rather "people with small eyes". DA1 (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

One of these hadith, the first one, has 13 citations, a clear case of WP:CITEKILL. DA1 (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@DA1: Hi. I removed those irrelevant parts and cleaned External links. I agree with your other points. Why you don't begin rewriting, cleaning, or neutralizing this article section by section? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Answer to DA1 (and I support both of your neutralizing attempt), I think it orignally meant to refer Syria, and there are living adjacent to the Turkish border "Turkomann" people, I think those are the 15000 refrerred.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC))

Sections for delete

“Muslim Turks and non-Muslim Turks”

I propose deleting the “Muslim Turks and non-Muslim Turks” section. Firstly, it is not clear why it exists at all, there is a “Religion” section (which also need rework). Secondly, he does not describe the claimed. How have the events described influenced the spread of Buddhism among Tuvans, Islam among Turkmen and Orthodoxy among some of the Yakuts? Karakhanid state was not even the first Turkic Muslim state.Üzgäreş (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

«Turks in Arabic texts»

In its present form, the section is still out of place. It would be nice if in the “History” section there was a section “Historiography” with a list of sources: Chinese, Arabic, Greek, Turkic, etc. But at this moment we have some racial reasoning based on a selection of interpretations of two quotes from all the medieval Arabic references about the Turks ... It seems to me that it is more rightly to delete this section, than to replay someone's bad-sourced racial reasonings. If these assumptions about races needed for somebody, it would be more appropriate to transfer them from the “history” section to the “physical anthropology” section, and write this section based on a large number of historiographical and archaeological sources.

«Murals and statues of medieval Turks» I also propose to delete this section. First of all, this is not about murals and statues of Turkic peoples in general. This is about a part of medieval legacy of the Uyghur people specifically. Secondly, the section provides interpretation of sources. The gradual disappearance of Buddhism after the conquest turns into “forced conversion”, which is not the same thing. Thirdly section theme itself is surprising. Trying to describe in the article murals and sculptures of all Turkic peoples throughout the Middle Ages would be as strange as describing "book illustration and architecture of medieval Slavs"Üzgäreş (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted and cleaned up the article, some of your "proposals for deletion" were deleted, others were moved to the right place. I will try to improve the section about religion, but for now I think it is better than before.--AsadalEditor (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

Please remove reference 56 and 57 because they don't exist. RavenKhar (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

57 seems to exist (Findley, Carter Vaughn. 2005. The Turks in World History). Number 56 was added in this edit in 2014 and seems to be referencing a tape. The Han dynasty did exist in 200BC so the sentence probably isn't wrong, but it would be good to replace it with something better. – Þjarkur (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Both references do exist, they are just not online.

@Þjarkur: That diff also shows the source appears earlier in the history of the article, it is citing the sentence directly before where it is added in that diff. However, the Findley book states "the earliest clearly Turkic people appeared on the peripheries of the late Xiongnu Exmpire", but it does not supply an exact date, which is what the Peter Zieme cite is referencing, so I am loathe to simply remove it. NiciVampireHeart 10:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of false claims and unrelated references

The following contribution was removed:

It is estimated that the ancient Turkic peoples belonged predominantly to the yDNA Haplogroup C-M217 with a medium distribution of Haplogroup Q-M242 and Haplogroup N-M231.

References

The statement is not supported by the references. The first two references do not concern ancient Turks, but certain late historical Turkic groups; and in neither reference is the claim made: "ancient Turks were primarily haplogroup X, Y, Z, etc". The second paper concerns recent Turks. The third reference (table 2) does not even concern historical Turks, but is merely a listing of modern living Turkic ethnicities, Y-DNA haplogroups that are commonly found in those ethnic groups today, and a list of supposed ancient ancestors of these people -- no aDNA is listed. There is nothing in these references that justifies the claim that ancient Turks are estimated to have belonged primarily to Y-DNA Q, N, or C, especially not in table 2 of the third reference. My edit therefore removes this utterly false statement, thereby improving the article. Hunan201p (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"Descent from"?

"The Turkic people descent from"... should't this be "descend from"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.248.171.59 (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right; I'm not a native speaker. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that "turkic peoples" are from the West Liao River Basin (modern china)

You said " the proto-Turkic people descend from the proto-Transeurasian language community, which lived the West Liao River Basin (modern Manchuria) around 6000 BCE and may be identified with the Xinglongwa culture " Is this written according to fact?

Could you extract some passages from the book ? I want to see the contents of the book. Many scholars said the Turkic people descend from people who lived in a region extending from present-day Central asia . Central asia was deleted without no reason.--Irantointerna (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is the full text of this study. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Irantointerna: so you're editing without checking the source? See WP:DISRUPTIVE. Regarding this edit-summary,

[1] Martine Robbeets is not a hitorian. [2] And the sources about Xinglongwa culture is unverified. [3] I can't find any information about "turikic people are from manchuria china" from this article

• [1] & [2]: see WP:RS
• [3] Robbeets does not say that Turkic people came from Manchuria; she says that

the proto-Turkic people descend from the proto-Transeurasian language community, which lived the West Liao River Basin (modern Manchuria) around 6000 BCE and may be identified with the Xinglongwa culture

Central Asia is nonsense, of course. It was populated by Iranian-speaking peoples before the Turkic expansions. It's also not what Yunusbayev et al. (2015) say; they propose a mongoloid origin of the Turkic people. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No, Ancient Iranian Nomads and proto-turkic people were living in central asia. See this https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bank-article/4%20Indo-European%20indications%20of%20Turkic%20ancestral%20home%20-%20Copy.pdf.--Irantointerna (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC) And there are proto turkic culture in anav(Turkmenistan BC 4000~) See this https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anav_k%C3%BClt%C3%BCr%C3%BC. Central asia is the origin of turkic people(Also Ancient Iranian Nomads)

And if you see Turkish wikipedia, You can find that Central asia is the origin of turkic people in Recent studies. "Orta Asya'da kurulan Türk uygarlıklarının tarihi en azından Orta Taş Çağına kadar dayanmaktadır. Bilinen bu uygarlıklardan en eskisi olan Anav Uygarlığı MÖ 10.000 yıllarına kadar uzanmaktadır" Thanks.--Irantointerna (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Theoriginofturkic.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irantointerna (talk • contribs) 11:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOR and WP:FORUM. Could stop edit warring and POV-pushing? You can't cite other WPs and their articles as source. Provide some reliable sources (English references) for the Central Asian origin of Turkic peoples. See WP:PROVEIT. This is English WP and this a academic/scholary topic. Why we should see Turkish WP and its stuff?! --Wario-Man (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by Hunan201p

The last edits by Hunan201p appear to be pure vandalism and POV pushing. He deleted sentences which are nearly identical written in this reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4405460 . He claims that this is not written in the reference. Maybe he can not read? Can someone reinsert the inforative and well sourced material? Maybe a direct quote from the reference, so no one can claim it is not supported... This is was the reference says (even in the beginning): “However, western Turkic peoples sampled across West Eurasia shared an excess of long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent (IBD) with populations from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia (SSM), an area where historians center a series of early Turkic and non-Turkic steppe polities.” Hunan201p deleted it without any serious reasons. He try to relate Central Asians with Western Eurasian haplogroups. A similar sockpuppet case is Tirgil34 in my opinion. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Tirgil34 . Could someone check that to? Thank you!213.142.96.62 (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

States in which Azerbaijanis have historically been living

This article needs to add Iran, Turkey and Georgia (country).

Arab1975 (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Please remove word "not" and spellcheck RE: Lee & Kuang article

In this line, please remove the first occurrence of the word "not," as marked out in bold (the word right before "...a heterogenous group"):

"Authors Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang analyzed 10 years of genetic research on Turkic people and compiled scholarly information about Turkic origins, and said that the early and medieval Turks were not a heterogenous group and that the Turkification of Eurasia was a result of language diffusion, not a migration of homogenous population.[70]"

I believe this "not" is there by accident. It contradicts what was intended.

Also, please revise "homogenous" to "homogeneous" and "heterogenous" to "heterogeneous."

Many thanks! Your mentioning this article in wikipedia is greatly appreciated.

-S. Kuang (the second author of the article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilm2019bilig (talk • contribs) 03:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Robbeets

Hunan201p has repeatedly removed the following info:

According to Robbeets, the proto-Turkic people descend from the proto-Transeurasian language community, which lived the West Liao River Basin (modern Manchuria) around 6000 BCE and may be identified with the Xinglongwa culture. They lived as agriculturalists, and later adopted a nomadic lifestyle and started a migration to the west.

References

• diff, edit-summary

Removed redundancy and undue weight to Robbeets

• diff, edit-summary

I have no idea why Joshua Johnathan reverted my previous edits, unless it had something to do with the reference tags. This section gave undue weight to a linguist's primary reference paper which had been repeated for redundancy, when other primary references such as Yujusbayev were lightly described. This in spite the fact that there is a superior secondary source ahead of it (Lee and Kuang) which contradicts it, which I recently corrected.

• diff, edit-summary

Josh, I think you are confused. There is one paper by Robbeets cited here, in which she hypothesizes that "proto-Turks" may have lived in the specified region. As this article previously stood, it contained two redundant "according to Robbeets" statements, which reiterated the paper's hypothesis, stated in a matter-of-fact fashion. One non-genetcist non-archaeologist's pet theory can't get that kind of airtime here and you know that. Other people raised concerns at talk page

The last edit changed

According to Robbeets, the Turkic people descend from people who lived in a region extending from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia to the West Liao River Basin (modern Manchuria).

into

Robbeets hypothesized that proto-Turks lived in a region extending from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia to the West Liao River Basin (modern Manchuria).

That's not what Robbeets says. She writes:

Robbets (2017) p.212:

The term “Transeurasian” refers to a large group of geographically adjacent languages, illustrated in Fig. 1. They stretch from the Pacific in the East to the Baltic and the Mediterranean in the West and include up to five different linguistic families: Japonic, Koreanic, Tungusic, Mongolic, and Turkic (Johanson and Robbeets, 2010: 1–2). “Transeurasian” is distinguished from the more traditional term “Altaic,” which can be reserved for the linguistic grouping consisting of Tungusic, Mongolic, and Turkic languages only. In my view, the Transeurasian languages can be shown to be genealogically related, applying the classical method of historical-comparative linguistics (Robbeets, 2005, 2015).

Robbeets (2017) p. 215-216:

Chinese historical records such as the Shiji (‘Records of the Grand Historian’ 109–91bc),the Sanguoji(‘Records of the Three States,’ 284ad) and the Houhanshu (‘History of the Later Han,’ 5th century) indicate that the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, and Japanic languages have all spread to their present day locations from an area comprising Korea, southern Manchuria and Inner Mongolia. These sources are generally vague, and determining the location of the individual homelands on this basis alone would be speculative. However, linguistic data relating to the center of linguistic diversity, the presence of prehistorical loanwords, cultural reconstruction, and the preservation of old toponyms support the indications from historical sources. Therefore, even critics of the affiliation of the Transeurasian languages, such as Janhunen (1996, 2009), situate the original speech communities of the individual families in this compact area.

Robbeets (2017) p. 217:

If we identify the early millet cultivators with the speakers of proto-Transeurasian, it is inviting to identify the first major demographic pulse associated with millet agriculture with the earliest node in the Transeurasian linguistic unity, notably the split between Altaic and proto-Japano-Koreanic. Therefore, I propose to associate proto-Japano-Koreanic with the Houwa cultures from the southern part of the Liaodong Peninsula up to the Yalu River, while linking Altaic with the Hongshan culture. I associate the separation of proto Tungusic from Altaic with the adoption of millet agriculture in the Zaisanovka culture.

Robbeets (2017) p. 218-219:

the westward spread of the Transeurasian languages can be associated with nomadic pastoralism. The sudden desertification of the Hunshandake Sandy Lands of Inner Mongolia in 2200 bc made the western outlier of the Hongshan culture disappear in this region (Yang et al., 2015). The people moved westwards into ecologically transitional zones and eventually shifted from semi-mobile millet farming to pastoralism in the eastern Eurasian steppes. Equestrian pastoralism developed in the eastern steppes between 1200 and 700 bc (Taylor et al., 2017). The Xiongnu, a mixture of ethnic groups, some of which have been identified as ancestral speakers of the Oghuric branch of Turkic, ruled as nomads in that area between 209 bc and 155 ad. Therefore, the desertification of Hunshandake in 2200 bc may be associated with the separation and westward spread of the Turkic speakers. Later, in historical times, they accelerated their westward spread from present-day Mongolia toward central Asia due to horsebackriding, replacing Indo-Iranian languages on the Asian steppes and ultimately arriving in Anatolia in the 11th century ad.

Robbeets (2017) p. 242:

I proposed that the homeland of the Transeurasian language family was in the West Liao River Basin around 6000 bc with the Xinglongwa culture, and that its speakers relied on a broad-spectrum subsistence strategy, adopting agriculture and growing nondomesticated millets, but also collecting roots and nuts in the wild [...] speakers of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages abandoned agriculture in favor of a more animal-oriented subsistence strategy, leading to the loss of agricultural terms in those languages and their preservation in Japanese or Korean only.

Regarding One non-genetcist [sic] non-archaeologist's pet theory can't get that kind of airtime here and you know that. Other people raised concerns at talk page: the "concerns" which were raised before (Talk:Turkic peoples#I don't think that "turkic peoples" are from the West Liao River Basin (modern china) were from an editor who believed that the Turkic peoples originated in Central Asia. Quite another concern. And there Robbeets was also misunderstood, which I corrected with the term "desended"; a similar mistake has been made again with the change mentioned above. The phrase One non-genetcist non-archaeologist's pet theory is a degeneratory remark, not a serious weighting of a source published by BRILL. Robbeets (2017) p. 215-216:

...even critics of the affiliation of the Transeurasian languages, such as Janhunen (1996, 2009), situate the original speech communities of the individual families in this compact area.

Nevertheless, language contact seems to be the mainstream view on the similarities between the (hypothetical) Altaic languages and east Asian languages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Proposal

Merge Turkic migration into Turkic peoples; basically the same topics, with the same info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support - per above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The sections on history in Turkic peoples and Turkic migration are fairly similar, however Turkic migration deals with one specific phenomenon; the migration of Turks over time from their ancestral lands (West Mongolia), into the lands they currently live in (Central and West Asia). I don't believe they should be merged, instead if necessary, trim down the history section on Turkic peoples, and expand the Turkic migration page, perhaps including a bit on the history of the pre-Turkic natives of the lands the Turks settled in. --Qahramani44 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, who's going to do the job, then? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - as per Qahramani44, migration warrants it's own article, whereas Turkic peoples should, imho, be an overview article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - per Joshua Jonathan, but it has to be noted that also in the Turkic people article we should also outline which people are of proven Turkic origin and in which case it is just one of the many assumptions, without clear evidence, and according to that proportion to expand or shorten per WP:DUE.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC))

* Support - per Joshua Jonathan. Turkic migration article is short and mostly whitout references, it will be more value on turkic peoples page and there you can rewrite and put ref on, I also support KIENGIR´s idea MeLoveGames (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The above user was a sockpuppet. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Qahramani44. The fact that the Turkics spread so far and so fast seemingly out of nowhere has made their migration itself a popular scholarly subject. This is not unprecedented; it's the same thing with Indo-Europeans, the Bantu peoples, the Germanic peoples, Vikings, etc..  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Turkic people are not only a collective when it's about the trnasmission from nomad folks to settlements. They also share a geographic history, linguistic history, common ethnic features, etc. That's why this article is needed. There is even room to broaden the article. TheGroninger (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note - I have removed the bar above the article since it's there for almost a year. It also doesn't seem like there is a majority or funded support for the proposal of Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!. Feel free to add it again if it is shown useful. TheGroninger (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

I would like to change a sentence "The first known mention of the term Turk (Old Turkic: 𐰰𐰼𐰇𐱅‎ Türük, 𐰰𐰼𐰇𐱅‎:𐰜𐰇𐰛 Kök Türük or 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰚‎ Türk; meaning "origin")[33][34][35][36] applied to a Turkic group was in reference to the Göktürks in the 6th century."

to

"The first known mention of the term Turk (Old Turkic: 𐰰𐰼𐰇𐱅‎ Türük, 𐰰𐰼𐰇𐱅‎:𐰜𐰇𐰛 Kök Türük or 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰚‎ Türk; meaning "origin")[34] was in reference to the Göktürks in the Khüis Tolgoi inscription probably not later than 587 AD (https://www.academia.edu/39809819/Groping_in_the_Dark_The_First_Attempt_to_Interpret_the_Bugut_Br%C4%81hm%C4%AB_Inscription)." RavenKhar (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Partially added, Changed probably to most-likely! JAZHAZHANDZWIKI (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Map

@Joshua Jonathan: The map you restored here is problematic. The image is also tagged for being inaccurate on Wiki Commons and I am not the only editor who has been cautioning against using this map. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aman Kumar Goel: thanks; I see. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Тухья анат енчи.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted content

This was removed due to sockpuppetry, but I think if the content pass as reliable, we better restore them. @Erminwin, Queenplz, and Steve Quinn: Your opinion? --Wario-Man (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I'm OK with restoring the content. I think it is a good idea. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Agreed. Erminwin (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I just restored them. They may need some editing per WP:WEIGHT. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Heading for Christianity is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02E:A6C6:C823:5DDC:9873:7D0C (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Uzbeks

Why are Uzbeks third only to Azerbaijanis in terms of population? Do you need a reliable source? Look here

I hope we fix this based on the sources--Asadbek Botirqulov (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Source 90 - Biased translation of the article

Hello Guys,

I would like to point out that one of the sources were used in a biased way. (could be without purpose of course, a mistake)

History: Quote WIKI article: ... The genetic evidence suggests that the Turkification of Central Asia was carried out by East Asian dominant minorities migrating out of Mongolia,[38] and that many Turkic peoples of Central Asia are descended from Turkified Indo-Iranians.[90][need quotation to verify]

I'm talking about the last part after the comma. Even Wikipedia is mentioning that a quotation is needed to to verify.

I read the article of source 90, in abstract you can find this: QUOTE SOURCE: These historical events transformed the Eurasian steppes from being INHABITED by Indo-European speakers of largely West Eurasian ancestry to the mostly Turkic-speaking groups of the present day, who are primarily of EAST ASIAN ancestry.

In no way is it mentioned that 'many Turkic peoples of Central Asia are DESCENDED from Turkified Indo-Iranians.

This is trying to cover up history by a biased comment from someone in here. I would like this to be changed as it is not correct.

So could you please remove the incorrect part after the comma of the sentence below: ... The genetic evidence suggests that the Turkification of Central Asia was carried out by East Asian dominant minorities migrating out of Mongolia,[38] ------>>> and that many Turkic peoples of Central Asia are descended from Turkified Indo-Iranians.[90][need quotation to verify] <<<------ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelBundy (talk • contribs) 09:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@MelBundy: Definitely see the issue with the article see into WIKIPEDIA:BOLD, if you are acting in good faith change it. Go and be bold and edit the article, soon you spewing knowledge out left and right! Best of luck. Go ahead and edit the page to something less POV pushing. Its not my job however, its up to you. Vallee01 (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

East Turkestan numbers is not added to Chinese population. Find info of East Turkestan here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Turkestan#:~:text=24%2C870%2C000%20(2018%20est.) Gundoganfa (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Gundoganfa (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2020

78.183.121.208 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC) karabakh is now azerbaijan please use the updated version of picture

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Darren-M talk 12:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Number of diaspora @ saudi dictatorship

It was uncited. So i deleted about diaspora.number attributed to saudi dictatorship occupied Arab. Where did even Egypt go? Uncited stats must be curtailed. Stephenfryfan (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead

The Turkic peoples are a collection of ethnic groups of Central, East, North and West Asia as well as parts of Europe and North Africa, who speak Turkic languages. this is a bit misleading, considering Khotons not speaking Turkic and Urums, Hellenic people speaking Turkic. Perhaps add the word "mainly". Opinions? Beshogur (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: You can reword/rewrite it. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Beshogur,

it's irrelevant here what languages some Hellenic people may speak, so "mainly" should be added in case before Turkic languages.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC))

Hazara Turkic tribes

Is it worth mentioning Hazara tribes whom are undeniably descendants of Turkic peoples, such as the Sheikh Ali, Qazak (Kazakh), Qirghiz (Kyrgyz), Qipchak (Kipchak) and Qarlugh tribes? Foxhound03 (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Foxhound03: Yes if their Turkic origin is sourced (WP:RS). Just no WP:OR and no unreliable content. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Alrighty, I managed to garner a few articles and scholarly studies on them, tell me if you have an issue with any one of them. Here are some: (www.researchgate.net/publication/297793660_Birth_marriage_and_death_in_the_folkloric_beliefs_of_Hazara_Turks) - exclusively refers to them as Turks, (dailytimes.com.pk/647149/rights-of-hazara-shias-and-transition-to-power-in-afghanistan/) - article mentions Turkic ancestry among others, (www.nps.edu/documents/105988371/107571254/Politics_and_Modern_History-of_Hazaras-Humayun_Sarabi.pdf/dcb1063e-ab40-41b2-ae66-547b8c3b6cbc), (Schurmann, F., 1961. The Mongols of Afghanistan: An Ethnography of the Moghols and Related Peoples of Afghanistan. Mouton and Co, Publishers, The Netherlands) and (scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=ajsr.2015.195.204) - these all mention Turkic ancestry too (as well as the Mongol). Thanks, Foxhound03 (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Only Schurmann's work is reliable. So add the sourced content from his work. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright Foxhound03 (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

The current population of Uzbekistan is 33,726,834 as of Wednesday, January 13, 2021, based on Worldometer elaboration of the latest United Nations data.^{Worldmeters page} Abdulbosid717 (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. That is extrapolated/estimated data. We want to use census data instead. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

HistoriaTurce (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to make a change regarding the origin of the Turkic people. Thank you!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Тухья анат енчи.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

Uzbeks are 34million in Uzbekistan, 10 million in Afghanistan, 2.5million in Kyrgyzstan, 3million in Kazakhstan, 2.9million in Russia, 500 thousand in Turkmenistan, 3 million in Tajikistan, 300 Thousand in Pakistan with 100 Thousand in Saudi Arabia with 100 thousand in US which is 56,400,000 Komiliy (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Belwine (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Missing ethnic group?

The Chelkans don't appear on the page yet.--101.98.133.254 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pavlodar-Moschea.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Language

Alphabet

In the second paragraph:

Change this: "The earliest positively dated and read Turkic inscriptions date from c. 150, and the alphabets were generally replaced by the Old Uyghur alphabet in the Central Asia, Arabic script in the Middle and Western Asia, Cyrillic in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans, and Latin alphabet in Central Europe."

To this: "The earliest positively dated and read Turkic inscriptions date from c. 150, and the alphabets were generally replaced by the Old Uyghur alphabet in Central Asia, the Arabic script in Middle and Western Asia, the Cyrillic alphabet in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans, and the Latin alphabet in Central Europe." UchikinaHito (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kudaibergen in Moscow (49442429177).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

At the end of the third sentence of the lead, please link "pastoral lifestyle" (i.e. "[[Pastoralism|pastoral]] lifestyle").

[Note: apparent absence here of any link to the Pastoralism page appears to be an oversight.] 86.186.155.141 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Beshogur (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring and inclusion of off-topic material and fringe blond blue eyed Turks

Recently two (!) editors included similar material claiming early Turkic people were partially "blond blue eyed warriors" and cite a reference with a quote about a small number of Xiongnu individuals. Another paragraph talks about the Kipchak rather than early Turks.

I have reverted these additions and requested that these users should read and understand WP:TOPIC, WP:OR, and WP:Weight, as well as WP:RS and WP:Verify. See:

Than these two users started to revert in rotation with suddenly a third new user starting to delete and change content in the lead, stating that "Turks are not Chinese". He simply deleted the mention of "agricultural societies in Northeast China", which is WP:POV. See:

Than I included content from the article Tiele and Ashina tribe about the description and historical attestation of early Turks, which the disputed section actually is about. See:

There are clear rules regarding the topic and reliable references, see WP:RS and WP:TOPIC.Turukkaean (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging long-term editors of this article based on the latest 250 edits: @Erminwin, @Wario-Man, @Qiushufang, @HistoryofIran. Please check this out.Turukkaean (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't add the original physical description stuff or Xiongnu stuff, but you should not edit war or accuse quotes being faked [1][2]. This is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

As for the issue at hand, Turkic is a language family so it's not surprising there were different types of people. This is nothing fringe:

“ Moreover, Turks do not all physically look alike. They never did. The Turks of Turkey are famous for their range of physical types. Given the Turks’

ancient Inner Asian origins, it is easy to imagine that they once presented a uniform Mongoloid appearance. Such traits seem to be more characteristic in the eastern Turkic world; however, uniformity of type can never have prevailed there either. Archeological evidence indicates that Indo-Europeans, or certainly Europoid physical types, inhabited the oases of the Tarim basin and even parts of Mongolia in ancient times. In the Tarim basin, persistence of these former inhabitants’ genes among the modern Uyghurs is both observable and scientifically demonstrable.32 Early Chinese sources describe the Kirghiz as blue-eyed and blond or red-haired. The genesis of Turkic ethnic groups from earliest times occurred in confederations of diverse peoples. As if to prove the point, the earliest surviving texts in Turkic languages are studded with terms from other languages.p. 18 in this book by Carter V. Findley

”

The source you are adding also talks about the same thing [3]:

“ In this article, we conducted a comparative analysis of textual information provided in Chinese histories and genetic survey data on the origins, identity and physiognomy of the early and medieval Turkic peoples. As discussed above, the official Chinese histories do not view the Turkic peoples such as the Tiele/Uighur, Kök Türks (Tujue) and Qirghiz as belonging to a single uniform entity called ‘Turks’. Instead, they describe them as forming separate identities. The Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as typically possessing East/Inner Asian physiognomy, as well as occasionally having West Eurasian physiognomy. dna studies corroborate such characterisation of the Turkic peoples. While it is true that insufficient amounts of ancient dna samples have been studied, one may still infer from the given genetic data that the early and medieval Turkic peoples possessed dissimilar sets of Y-chromosome haplogroups with different representative haplogroups, some of which were of West Eurasian origin. ”

Now after your edits the above source is misrepresented as: "University of Toronto historians Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang conclude, based on genetic data and historical Chinese', Persian' and Arab' initial descriptions of contemporary Turkic peoples, that Turkic peoples initially "possess[ed] East Asian physiognomy"." [4]. This is WP:Original Research Bogazicili (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

So what to do? I will make now some edits reincluding parts. What to do with the off topic part? It is clearly a violation of WP:Topic, so to show good faith you should delete it yourself, as you actually agreed that this is about Xiongnu rather than Turkic peoples.Turukkaean (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, you should stop edit warring and propose all changes on the talk page. Second, I think the current version of the article is better than what you are trying to change as it reflects the sources better. If you are going to add Lee and Kuang 2017, it should not be misrepresented.

I do think the article overall needs to be improved, there are too many original research parts even in the lead and too many primary sources. As for Xiongnu, I just said I didn't add it myself. You can argue if Xiongnu is off-topic with the editors on the talk page, I didn't look at all the sources myself. Bogazicili (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, you reincluded the content several times and now say that you did not look at the sources yourself? Seriously? I am currently improving the article with smaller edits, so anyone can verify the additions. The current version was not better as the user TengriidBogd has deleted parts of the referenced lead without a reliable reason. Further, I included clarification tags, which are an improvement. Anyway, I have already pinged other users to join here and help us to improve the article together. I hope we can find a solution, but looking at the edit history you hopefully understand my concern with users trying to claim that early Turks were "blond blue eyed warriors".Turukkaean (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Further, I think it would be more useful to use the linguistic map which I included, as it shows the minority groups in not recognized regions too. Any objections? Note: I did not deleted the contested content, but tagged in with a clarification needed tag.Turukkaean (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is already a massive Xiongnu section, and I didn't go through all those sources in Turkic_peoples#Xiongnu_(3rd_c._BCE_–_1st_c._CE). You selectively removed those relating to physical appearance only for some reason.

Again you misrepresented sources [5]. Lee and Kuang 2017 doesn't say "later". They specifically say: "It has been suggested that the early Turkic peoples probably had contact with Indo-European, Uralic, Yeniseian, and Mongolic groups in their formative period (Golden 2006: 139)." Also they are not University of Toronto historians, I don't see them in the faculty list. You also added another incorrect failed verification tag [6]. You also added an entire wall of text [7], some of which should have been in etymology section. I mean all those edits are a mess.

And no, I don't think anyone is saying all Turkic people were "blond blue eyed warriors". Sources are just saying there were different types of people and even the initial turkic speaking people were diverse.Bogazicili (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I will shorten these and remove the later. Regarding the map, what do you think? I will move the etymology parts in the correct location and or delete them. Thank you for the note regarding Lee & Kuang. I copied it from Oghuz Turks, and did not pay attention if the academics are from this university or not. Regarding the last point, nearly all references agree that the early Turks descend from Northeast Asian groups and later got in contact with others, so the initial Turks were not diverse, other than we argue that the Göktürks are the initial Turks, as you quoted yourself from Lee & Kuang. Anyway, thank you for the productive discussion and teamwork.Turukkaean (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

And no, the sourced which talk about some "blond blue eyed warriors" is actually talking about the Xiongnu, not the early Turks. This is also WP:OR.Turukkaean (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Which references? The ones in the lead? Most of them seem to be primary sources, like this: [8]. I mean even the author in that source says: "In this paper, I propose a hypothesis reconciling Austronesian influence and Transeurasian ancestry in the Japanese language, explaining the spread of the Japanic languages through farming dispersal." You can't use that for an overview statement in the very lead in Wiki voice. For the lead and for most of the article, high quality secondary sources should be preferred, like the book [9] and the change you made in the lead is not in line with that. In any case, the article has so many issues already.

As for the hair and eye colour thing, refer to above quote by Carter V. Findley, who is an actual historian. Bogazicili (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I restored the lead which was changed by TengriidBogd. I have already said that. Furthermore, there were several discussions if you look at the talk page history and the editors agreed to use this wording. Additionally there are so many studies, such as Li, Uchiyama or Damgaard, which are more reliable than a 2005 book. There was already consensus about that. The reference of Roobbets which you cited is not the only one and there are much more useful and recent studies which came to the same conclusion. Strangely, looking at the edit history, now blocked users made exactly the same arguments regarding Robbeets study and trying to base their view on old history books. I am not accusing someone here, but it is kind of unusual. Involved users will know whom I am referring to. Anyway, the lead was already discussed and consensus was found by several users. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkic_peoples/Archive_5.Turukkaean (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Also reminding you of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD as another user has done. It seems you had several disputes with other users regarding various Turkic peoples, especially Turkish and Azerbaijanis. Anyway, I hope we can improve the article, there are really some paragraphs which need some clean up.Turukkaean (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest to everyone to read Uchiyama et al. 2020, who summarized the most recent studies, in a tertiary way, including genetic, linguistic, and archeologic evidence. See:.Turukkaean (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

Brmctlk1 (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC) It will be a small update where I will update the Turkish population in Turkey.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Altai Republic.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sock edits

Hello fellow Wikipedians, one or many sock accounts of the LTA "WorldCreaterFighter" seem to have made several major edits in this article. The LTA is known to push East or Southeast Asia nationalist agendas in multiple versions of Wikipedia. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter

A fast example I found is how this quote was deformed from this:

"Both Chinese histories and modern dna studies indicate that the early and medieval Turkic peoples were made up of heterogeneous populations. The Turkicisation of central and western Eurasia was not the product of migrations involving a homogeneous entity, but that of language diffusion."

to this:

"In subsequent centuries, the steppe populations of Central Asia appear to have been progressively Turkified by an East Asian dominant minority moving out of Mongolia"

This is only one of probably several such problems. I am not sure how to handle this, as it affects several parts of the article. I will try to work out an alternative version and post it here for further discussion (if wanted). For now I will focus to fix other articles or revert more of their vandalism.Whhu22 (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

After taking some look on the papers, most seems fine, and I may have had overreacting with all my total reverts here. A more balanced approach is probably better, so I will restore useful parts, with later clean up.Whhu22 (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Much of the content included by the LTA IP is using quite good papers and mostly correct, but often unsourced personal opinions are mixed into the paragraphs, which is mostly a WP:OR problem, but should be easier to fix rather than to WP:TNT it (generally speaking, see my recent edits on affected pages). I hope everyone agrees with my decision. I will start cleaning the affected pages I am aware of. Any help is appropriated.Whhu22 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Whhu22: Thank you for noticing the changes WorldCreaterFighter made to this article, which he repeatedly emphasized as Turukkaean (talk · contribs). However, the lede content does indeed fail WP:OR, and more specifically, WP:RSPRIMARY.

The issue here is not the accuracy of these citations, but the fact that they are contradicting eachother, and that they are a mix of primary and secondary sources.

Lee & Kuang (2017)[10] clearly state that the early Türks were heterogenous, meaning that they were genetically and phenotypically diverse:

Both Chinese histories and modern dna studies indicate that the early and medieval Turkic peoples were made up of heterogeneous populations. The Turkicisation of central and western Eurasia was not the product of migrations involving a homogeneous entity, but that of language diffusion."

Peter Golden also describes Lee and Kuang (2017):

Some DNA tests point to the Iranian connections of the Ashina and Ashide,133 highlighting further that the Turks as a whole ‘were made up of heterogeneous and somatically dissimilar populations’.134

These papers thus clearly contradict Damgaard et al (2018), which says:

These results suggest that Turkic cultural customs were imposed by an East Asian minority elite onto central steppe nomad populations [...]

Besides being contradictory, the most important distinction between these sources is their nature. Damgaard et al (2018) is a primary source. It uses its own data, gathered by its own researchers, to reach its own conclusions. On the other hand, Lee & Kuang et al (2017) and Golden (2018) are secondary sources. They summarize the whole of the research that has been conducted by a variety of scholars.

This matters, because we cannot synthesize primary and secondary sources on Wikipedia. Not only does the lede do exactly this, it does it in the worst way: it scrubs the conclusion of a secondary source in favor of a primary source. This is a blatant disregard of Wikipedia's policy about analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of references. Since WorldCreaterFighter uses this study as a part of his mission to East Asian-ize everything related to steppe cultures, as recently noted at ANI, it is clear that this synthesis was intentional and made in bad faith. - Hunan201p (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this kind of problem I referred to. I will make some further careful edits based on the Lee and Kuang paper:

The Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as typically possessing East/Inner Asian physiognomy, as well as occasionally having West Eurasian physiognomy. DNA studies corroborate such characterisation of the Turkic peoples.

and:

...like Chinese historians, Muslim writers in general depict the ‘Turks’ as possessing East Asian physiognomy. However, Muslim writers later differentiated the Oghuz Turks from other Turks in terms of physiognomy. Rashīd al-Dīn writes that ‘because of the climate their features gradually changed into those of Tajiks. Since they were not Tajiks, the Tajik peoples called them turkmān, i.e. Turk-like (Turk-mānand)’ (Rashīd al-Dīn Fażlallāh Hamadānī 1988: Vol. 1, 35–6; Rashiduddin Fazlullah 1998–99: Vol. 1, 31). Ḥāfiẓ Tanīsh Mīr Muḥammad Bukhārī (d. c. 1549) also relates that after the Oghuz came to Transoxiana and Iran, their ‘Turkic face did not remain as it was’ (1983: fol. 17a (text), Vol. 1, 61 (trans.)). Abū al-Ghāzī Bahadur Khan similarly writes that ‘their chin started to become narrow, their eyes started to become large, their faces started to become small, and their noses started to become big’ after five or six generations (Abu-l-Gazi 1958: 42 (text), 57 (trans.); Ebülgazî Bahadir Han 1975: 57–8). As a matter of fact, the mixed nature of the Ottomans, belonging to the Oghuz Turkic group, is noted by the Ottoman historian Muṣṭafā ʿĀlī (1541–1600).

And I also will re-add the Uchiyama map, which is useful (I guess it was mistakenly removed). The Uchiyama et al. paper is insofar useful as it is using the data of previous studies, making it secondary:

Recent DNA studies show that starting from the end of the second millennium BCE, the East Asian-related components were already found in numerous populations in Central Asia and Eastern Europe (Narasimhan et al., 2019). By the Iron Age, populations (e.g. Xiongnu) with primarily East Asian ancestry moved westward on a large scale, which combined in different proportions with local populations who were originally Indo-European speakers with largely west Eurasian ancestry that shifted their languages to Turkic (Damgaard et al., 2018). Modern DNA of multiple Turkic populations showed that the Turkic peoples shared their ancestry with populations from southern Siberia and Mongolia, supporting the hypothesis that they originated there (Yunusbayev et al., 2015; Tambets et al. 2018). Although current genetic evidence is not adequate to track the exact time and location for the origin of the proto-Turkic language, it is clear that it probably originated somewhere in northeastern Asia given the fact that the nomadic groups, such as the Rouran, Xiongnu and the Xianbei, all share a substratum genetic ancestry that falls into or close to the northeast Asian gene pool (Ning et al., in press; Li et al., 2018).

Thank you for participating in the discussion and correcting this leftover of the LTA! I will keep a watchful eye over this and previously affected articles.Whhu22 (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I will check out the whole article, there seem to be some misplaced and possibly also unsourced paragraphs, such as this one within the Hun section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&type=revision&diff=1077697368&oldid=1077694315). Not sure if LTA related or not, but taking them out if unsourced.Whhu22 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Whhu22:Thanks for your quick response. I did indeed accidentally remove the Uchiyama content, however, I'm sorry to say that the content you have re-added is still influenced by the misinformation that WorldCreaterFighter has injected in to this article, which is still far-reaching.

Lee & Kuang (2017) do not say that the earliest Turks had an East Asian appearance. This is another falsehood that WorldCreaterFighter placed in this article. Lee & Kuang make clear that the Jie, a branch of the Xiongnu, were of West Eurasian appearance:

However, the Jie (羯), ‘a separate branch of the Xiongnu (匈奴別部)’, who founded the Later Zhao Dynasty (319–351 ad), appear to have possessed West Eurasian physiognomy, that is, ‘deep-set eyes’, ‘high nose bridges’ and ‘heavy facial hair’. The Jinshu relates that when the Later Zhao Dynasty was overthrown, the Han Chinese rebel leader Ran Min massacred about 200,000 Jie, or those with ‘high nose bridges’ and ‘heavy beard (高鼻多須)’ (Jinshu 107.2792).

Hence, the Turkic-speaking Xiongnu had a west Eurasian appearance long before the Medieval era.

Other authors have also noted the West-Eurasian appearance among the earliest ruling elite of the Old Türks: the Ashina.

Quoting Penglin Wang (2018), page 190[11]

"It may be pointed out that exogamy practiced among the local people could have promoted intermarriage with any interested members of other tribes. Historical writers had attempted to describe the distinctive characteristics of the human physical out-looks. Their feelings toward human biological diversity are spontaneous snd objective. This kind of descriptions is to be read with sober reflections that racial concepts were changing from time to time. *Zhoushu* (50.909) describes the Turkic Qağan Muhan in the following terms: *His appearance is much unusual, for his face is a chi plus broad and is quite reddish, and his eyes look like colored glazes. Since then this kind of racial descriptions suspended in the biographical or ethnic accounts of Turkic rulers in Chinese sources. According to Xue Zongzheng (1992:80), the emergence of less-Caucasoid features in the Turkic ruling class was probably due to the intermarriage with the Chinese imperial families from generation to generation. Consequently, up to the Qağan's eigth generation descendant, Ashina Simo, his racial features remained unchanged to the extent in which he was described as looking like a Hu (Sogdian) person, not akin to Turkic, and suspected to be not of Ashina genealogical strain, and henceforth was unfortunately not trusted for military commandership (JTS 194.5163). Xue Zongzheng argues that 'looking like a Hu person' was originally the intrinsic feature of the Ashina lineage, then became presented as a sign of impure blood as a result of the qualitative change occured in the hybrid physical features combining both Mongoloid and Caucasoid physical traits.

Thus, West Eurasian physical features like blue eyes or "Caucasoid" facial features were already present in the earliest period of the medieval age. Many authors, including Wang, believe that many of the Old Türks were originally of a West Eurasian appearance, and became more East Asian looking during the medieval period, due to admixture with East Asians. Hence the oversimplification that Türkic speakers became West Eurasian in medieval times is an evisceration of what the sources actually say. It's much more complex than that. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for further citations. But it seems this largely refers to the ruling Ashina tribe/clan, which are sometimes suggested to be of Iranian or part Iranian origin. Wang does speak about the Ashina individuals. Can we take this for the total Turkic peoples? The Lee and Kuang paper mention indeed different subgroups of Turkic associated tribes, but the citation I used is from their conclusion, where they cite historical writings which described them as "East/Inner Asian" with occasional West-Eurasian phenotypes:

The Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as typically possessing East/Inner Asian physiognomy, as well as occasionally having West Eurasian physiognomy. DNA studies corroborate such characterisation of the Turkic peoples.

I am not sure if and how to use the other citations about specific subgroups, but it is probably better to put the specific description there, instead of here. Regarding the Jie citation, if I am not wrong, the Jie are not necessarily Turkic. This seems to vague to me, but maybe another user knows more about that. I am overall thinking to trim the lead a bit, but I think more users should participate in this section.Whhu22 (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, many paragraphs are unsourced. Not sure if it helps to add 'citation needed' tags everywhere, but maybe this helps to encourage others to help.Whhu22 (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting your edit, but I think we must be more careful with what we cite and what the citation refers to. Personally, I am not even sure if we should hold much weight on their phenotypes, or simply remove this kind of content, as it is the very reason for the LTA to pop up here and there. Any thoughts?Whhu22 (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Wong citation and the citation about the Jie has been reverted for a similar reason before by @Erminwin:. The user may join us to determine what to do with this.Whhu22 (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What "similar reason"? You don't seem to have given a reason why the Xiongnu quote from Lee & Kuang isn't relevant. The article makes many references to the Xiongnu, why not now? - Hunan201p (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I meant the difference between subgroups and overall Turkic peoples, as explained by Erminwin. I completely understand what you mean, thus I wanted to know the opinion of Erminwin, who is a occasionally editing this article, as far as I can tell from the page history.Whhu22 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the problem here is the use of the word "later" in the lede. Both pre-medieval and medieval Chinese sources describe Turkic speakers with West Eurasian appearances. That includes the Xiongnu, who are mentioned by subgroup throughout this article. I see no controversy to stating what Lee & Kuang and Golden say: which is that early and medieval Turks were genetically and somatically dissimilar. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is true but problems remain. They specifically say: "typically possessing East/Inner Asian physiognomy, as well as occasionally having West Eurasian physiognomy". The same paper also stressed that they physically changed in Medival times, at least the Oghuz:

However, Muslim writers later differentiated the Oghuz Turks from other Turks in terms of physiognomy. Rashīd al-Dīn writes that ‘because of the climate their features gradually changed into those of Tajiks. Since they were not Tajiks, the Tajik peoples called them turkmān, i.e. Turk-like (Turk-mānand)’ (Rashīd al-Dīn Fażlallāh Hamadānī 1988: Vol. 1, 35–6; Rashiduddin Fazlullah 1998–99: Vol. 1, 31). Ḥāfiẓ Tanīsh Mīr Muḥammad Bukhārī (d. c. 1549) also relates that after the Oghuz came to Transoxiana and Iran, their ‘Turkic face did not remain as it was’ (1983: fol. 17a (text), Vol. 1, 61 (trans.)). Abū al-Ghāzī Bahadur Khan similarly writes that ‘their chin started to become narrow, their eyes started to become large, their faces started to become small, and their noses started to become big’ after five or six generations (Abu-l-Gazi 1958: 42 (text), 57 (trans.); Ebülgazî Bahadir Han 1975: 57–8). As a matter of fact, the mixed nature of the Ottomans, belonging to the Oghuz Turkic group, is noted by the Ottoman historian Muṣṭafā ʿĀlī (1541–1600).

The Golden paper also refers to the Turks of the Göktürk period, specifically to the Ashina clan, which are suggested to have an Iranian link. I am not sure what to do. We may wait for further users and their opinions on this matter. I simply be unsure if we should put that much weight into hypotheses about their physical appearance. Steppe confederations, like all confederations, are, at least quite often, kind of diverse. And the overall descriptions cited is this:

The Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as typically possessing East/Inner Asian physiognomy, as well as occasionally having West Eurasian physiognomy. DNA studies corroborate such characterisation of the Turkic peoples.

I am not sure what to do. We need a really balanced approach to correctly cite these citations. Such as mentioning that different papers make different arguments, and cite the respective arguments, as well as the specific subgroups. But I suggest waiting on the comments of others (such as Erminwin, who seem to have experienced with this kind of topic).Whhu22 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend separating the DNA and historical records into their own sections and provide as many quotation as possible attributed to their individual authors to avoid leaning on any one side or provide any consensus. Qiushufang (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no consensus on whether or not the Xiongnu or Jie were Turkic. They are just theories. Hunan has already been banned and gotten into multiple incidents on pushing fringe racial theories and edit warring. Disappointing to see him here again. Qiushufang (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Neither the articles for Jie people or Xiongnu claim without doubt that they were Turkic or that they are even the primary theories. Where does the Lee & Kuang source claim they were Turkic or that they were the earliest Turks? Qiushufang (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

After checking the article it is clear that Hunan is once again cherry picking the parts to support a West Eurasian Caucasoid origin racial theory like he has on multiple pages, including Yellow Emperor in the past. For example he claims that the Lee & Kuang article do not support an East Asian appearance for the earliest Turks and then moves onto claims that the XIongnu were of West Eurasian appearance deriving from a single description of the Jie people, who were only a subgroup of the Xiongnu. In fact, the Lee & Kuang article state that

The Xiongnu were the first nomadic empire-builders in Inner Asian history. Historians have been unable to confirm whether or not the Xiongnu were a Turkic people. The mid sixth-century work Weishu relates that the language of the Gaoche (高車), a Turkic people who established a nomadic state in modern-day Xinjiang in the late fifth century ad, and that of the Xiongnu were roughly the same with some differences.7 In addition, the mid seventh-century work Beishi recounts that the language of the Yuwen Xiongnu, a Xiongnu tribe active during the Sixteen Kingdoms Period (304–439 ad) in northern China, was quite different from that of the Xianbei, a Mongolic or Para-Mongolic people (Beishi 98.3270). However, the linguistic affiliation of the Xiongnu may remain open to speculation even though some of the Xiongnu remnants later may have taken part in the formation and development of various Turkic nomadic confederations.

There is no consensus at all whether or not the Xiongnu were Turks or that they were all Turkic speaking. Lee & Kuang make this clear: "Unlike for the Xiongnu, historians know with certainty that the Dingling (丁零), a nomadic people who inhabited present-day northern Mongolia during the Xiongnu period, were a Turkic people." Furthermore, Lee & Kuang state that the Han Chinese population evidently did not consider them to be physically too different from themselves:

Concerning the origin of the Xiongnu, the Shiji by Sima Qian (司馬遷, d. 86 bc) relates that they were descended from Chun Wei (淳維) (Shiji 110.2879), a legendary figure from the ancient Xia (夏) Dynasty, thus attributing a Xia origin to the Xiongnu. Such an explanation is of no scientific value in determining the origin of the Xiongnu. Yet it does suggest that the physiognomy of the Xiongnu was not too different from that of Sima Qian’s own Han (漢) Chinese population, who also considered themselves descendants of the Xia.

The section on the Gokturks also makes clear that despite Ashina Simo's Sogdian appearance, a collective description of their physiognomy does not exist for them or the Tiele, the earliest mentioned Turks. This is in contrast to the Wusun who are specifically described as foreign and barbarian. Hunan's claim that the Xiongnu were of Western Eurasian appearance is thus far reaching and not at all representative of the article referenced. Qiushufang (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Lee & Kuang even provide a supporting quotation from the Old Book of Tang which notes that the Ashina Khagans were doubtful of Ashino Simo's heritage due to his Sogdian appearance:

Simo was a relative of Xieli. Because his face was like that of the ‘barbarian (huren 胡人)’ and not like that of the Tujue, Shibi [Khagan] and Chuluo [Khagan] were doubtful of his being one of the Ashina. Thus although he always held the title of Jiabi tele[i] (夾畢特勒) during Chuluo and Xieli’s time, he could not become a shad (she 設) in command of the army till the end …

Qiushufang (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I refrain from commenting the recent developments here, but largely agree with the current version worked out by Qiushufang and Erminwin.Whhu22 (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: you have done a great job in creating the new section and adding the various descriptions in a balanced way! I have just added the description of Kipchak and Karakypshaks, from Lee and Kuang and the cite from Oshanin, as well as Yuanshi vol. 128 Tutuha. But I still think we must be quite careful with all these. Please check out my addition, any thoughts?Whhu22 (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: Lee & Kuang (2017) state emphatically that the early Turks had both west Eurasian and East Asian appearances. It is pretty clear from the Xiongnu section in their study that there were West Eurasian and east Asian phenotypes among the Xiongnu. The Xiongnu are already mentioned throughout this Wikipedia article, so who do you think you are to bypass Lee & Kuang (2017), and censor their bold conclusion that both early and medieval Turks had diverse appearances? Its pretty clear they reached that conclusion based on the description of the Jie branch of the Xiongnu. Other authors, including Kevin Alan Brooks, -in the very chapter of the citation you recently edited- notes the West Eurasian appearance of a Xiongnu leader,[12] who was Liu Yuan of the Han Zhao dynasty.[13].

Another example, which Turukkaean (talk · contribs) was adament about removing from the article:

Although Chinese chronicles describe the Xiongnu as Mongolian, they also describe warriors with blond hair and blue eyes, who practiced a religious cult involving a sky god called Tengri

Yup, that spells Turkic and West Eurasian. Not even scratching the surface here. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2022

From Carter V. Findley:

Moreover, Turks do not all physically look alike. They never did. {...} Given the Turks' ancient Inner Asian origins, it is easy to imagine that they once presented a uniform Mongoloid appearance. Such traits seem to be more characteristic of the eastern Turkic world; however, uniformity of type can never have prevailed there, either.

The Turks in World History, 2005 - Hunan201p (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The Lee & Kuang article never claimed the Xiongnu were Turkic so how can I or anyone else bypass Lee & Kuang based on a claim they never make? To do so would be WP:OR. The relevant full quotations in Lee & Kuang do not support a predominantly or common West Eurasian physiognomy for the Xiongnu either way:

Historians have been unable to confirm whether or not the Xiongnu were a Turkic people.6 According to some fragmentary information on the Xiongnu language that can be found in the Chinese histories, the Xiongnu were Turkic and not Mongolic. The mid sixth-century work Weishu relates that the language of the Gaoche (高車), a Turkic people who established a nomadic state in modern-day Xinjiang in the late fifth century ad, and that of the Xiongnu were roughly the same with some differences.7 In addition, the mid seventhcentury work Beishi recounts that the language of the Yuwen Xiongnu, a Xiongnu tribe active during the Sixteen Kingdoms Period (304–439 AD) in northern China, was quite different from that of the Xianbei, a Mongolic or Para-Mongolic people (Beishi 98.3270). However, the linguistic affiliation of the Xiongnu may remain open to speculation even though some of the Xiongnu remnants later may have taken part in the formation and development of various Turkic nomadic confederations. (p. 199)

Yet it does suggest that the physiognomy of the Xiongnu was not too different from that of Sima Qian’s own Han (漢) Chinese population, who also considered themselves descendants of the Xia. However, the Jie (羯), ‘a separate branch of the Xiongnu (匈奴別部)’, who founded the Later Zhao Dynasty (319–351 ad), appear to have possessed West Eurasian physiognomy, that is, ‘deep-set eyes’, ‘high nose bridges’ and ‘heavy facial hair’. The Jinshu relates that when the Later Zhao Dynasty was overthrown, the Han Chinese rebel leader Ran Min massacred about 200,000 Jie, or those with ‘high nose bridges’ and ‘heavy beard (高鼻多須)’ (Jinshu 107.2792). (p. 199)

One should note here that the above-discussed genetic makeup of the Xiongnu and their neighbouring Altaian nomads, who were probably incorporated into the Xiongnu confederation, corroborates the Xiongnu phenotypical characteristics depicted in Chinese histories. It is likely that the Inner Asian looking Xiongnu mostly belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroups C2, Q, and N, while the West Eurasian-looking Jie probably belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1. Alternatively, if the Jie, ‘a separate branch of the Xiongnu’, who founded the Later Zhao Dynasty (319–351 AD), were indeed a Yeniseian speaking people, they may have been carriers of haplogroup Q and resembled modern-day Kets of Siberia. (p. 223-224)

On p. 209 there is even a chart of the recorded physiognomies or lack thereof provided of all the peoples mentioned. Here Xiongnu is grouped under Turkic peoples but "Their physiognomy" is recorded as "Not differentiated from that of Han Chinese." Lee & Kuang never make the claim that the Jie were representative of the Xiongnu or that they were Turkic, and even suggest that they were Yeneisian. Whatever other sources you provide, that is the stance of the Lee & Kuang source. If other sources on the subject claim that they are Turkic then please provide the direct quotation in the article to avoid ambiguity and arguments. I do not know what Turukkaean deleted but all of this can be somewhat avoided through quotations and proper attribution. I do not understand what you mean to say by providing the Findley source since his stance is already represented in the article, which never makes the claim that all Turks looked one way or the other and provides accounts of different physiognomies and descriptions by many authors.

On the early Turkic Western Eurasian physiognomy, what Lee & Kuang actually said was:

Unlike Chinese historians, who reserved Tujue (Türk in Turkic) for the Kök Türks, Muslim writers used the term Turk broadly to denote not only the Turkic-speaking peoples, but also other non-Turkic peoples. However, like Chinese historians, Muslim writers in general depict the ‘Turks’ as possessing East Asian physiognomy. (p. 207)

In sum, one should note that the early eastern Turkic peoples were in all likelihood genetically closer to their neighbouring Mongolic peoples than to various later Turkic peoples of central and western Eurasia. (pp. 227-228)

The Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as typically possessing East/Inner Asian physiognomy, as well as occasionally having West Eurasian physiognomy. DNA studies corroborate such characterisation of the Turkic peoples. While it is true that insufficient amounts of ancient DNA samples have been studied, one may still infer from the given genetic data that the early and medieval Turkic peoples possessed dissimilar sets of Y-chromosome haplogroups with different representative haplogroups, some of which were of West Eurasian origin. This means that the various Turkic peoples did not have a common patrilineal origin or uniform physiognomy. Notably, the Xiongnu themselves, whether they were a Turkic-speaking entity or not, were a hybrid people composed of carriers of both East and Inner Eurasian haplogroups C2, N, and Q and West Eurasian haplogroup R1a1.(p. 228-229)

Here [14] you edited the material to say "Historians Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang concluded, based on genetic data and historical descriptions of Turkic-speaking peoples by Persians, Arabs, and Chinese, that many early Turkic peoples exhibited "West-Eurasian physiognomy."" I could not find a direct quotation in the material to support this passage. Hence the default to quotations in the main article to avoid ambiguity. I suggest you do the same with attribution to their author to avoid bias. I have also included the quotation you provided on the Ashina origin in the article attributed to the author. Qiushufang (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I am nowhere saying that the Xiongnu or early Turks were predominantly West Eurasian. What I am saying is this:

Both Chinese histories and modern dna studies indicate that the early and medieval Turkic peoples were made up of heterogeneous populations.

This is where we are bypassing Lee & Kuang. They clearly say early Turks were heterogenous, just as Findley did, so why change their conclusion just because they don't explicity state that the Xiongnu were Turkic, even though the Wikipedia article has an entire section for the Xiongnu, who are universally regarded as being linked to Turks? It just smacks of the very anti-West Eurasian bias that WorldCreaterFighter (Turukkaean) is known for pushing in Turkic related articles. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)