Talk:Turkic peoples/Archive 1

message: And what a gigantic mess it is. people groups, languages, ancient history, turkish poetry all happily (or not so) mixed together. I think this article contains the foundations of two or three different ones and this should be done asap. Refdoc 22:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: I have done a big clear out removing doublets, shifting stuff onto relevant existing pages added links and put some stuff which I could not use in the paragraphes above. The remainder is still largely POV, and should continue to carry the disputed tag - and I guess there are many of you who would want to dispute my editing :-) feel free to change again Refdoc 00:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear Out 

message: I have removed the following text: It is noteworthy to mention that the term "Turkic" did not exist before the Stalinist era.  Today, the term "Turkish" is most commonly associated with the Turks of Turkey and eastern Europe, while before the establishment of the Soviet Union, "Turkish" meant all "Turkic" peoples of the world.  In the Turkish languages, there is no distinction between Turkish/Turkic.  When referring to the different dialects of the Turks, the term Turkish is used (for example the language of the Azerbaijanis is Azerbaijani-Turkish and the language of the Uygurs is Uygur-Turkish.) 
Turkic is the term used by English speaking linguistics to classify a group of languages discussed in this article. Whether or not people feel they not "Turkic" is in this respect relatively irrelevant. I do not feel "indo-european" and yet my language is classified in this way. I would lik eto reserve the Term "Turkish" for whatever political ambitions/cultural affinities/etc there are, but think we should  insist on using clear and recognised language for this article. WRT to Stalin note above - this is a bit disingenious as we speak/write English here rather than Russian. Refdoc 08:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkic vs Turkish 

message: I am struggling with this one - anyone else any ideas ? Refdoc 10:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics 

message: So, this was a bit of a nightmare of an edit. All and everything mentiond as "cut" in the above paragraphes, is either back in the article or moved to other relevant articles' talk pages. I have tried to accommodate all different view points and tried to come to NPOV on all significant matters. This has required some editing and subscribers of pan-this or pan-that might well be unhappy. But please do not do a simple revert but bring your point to the talk 
----
pages. There has been a spat of revert wars over various pages in the recent past and I think this should be avoided.  If possible. And if you all agree (or if I keep talking to myself)  I will remove the dispute notice in 48 hrs. Refdoc 13:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the geographic information is not factually accurate, and that's why I removed it. I will put them back at my expense (!) if one could find a reasonable source for them (please note that they were added by anonymous contributors who refused to talk about details). As for the stubs, why not add them back when the articles got created? This is specially important since their existance may be disputed. roozbeh 15:07, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
I cut the subsection "Historical Turkic peoples include:" as all but two (Avars and Kipchaks) were already mentioned in the historical section above. I believe it would be better if for these two peoples eitehr sentence was found in teh historical section (if tehy are of importance - I have no clue) or they get silently dropped. The section was a bit incongruous in that particular place. Refdoc 16:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: I find the discussion of Pan-Turkism to a great extent to be based on oppinion and conjecture. I am not happy with the tone, it is not nutral; this article is pro-turk unification. It is also badly written and repeatedly mis-spelled. Am am not fully informed on most issues here and so hav'nt deleated anything, but somthing has to be sorted out.
For Example:
"if these republics unites with Turkey it will make a strong united power against the emperialistic wills of Communist China. In the other hand Russia will not like idea and unification movement due to high level Turkic population in his teritories and in a panicy way will attempt for prevention. They very well know entire Siberia is a Turkic land accupied by brutal Russians in 19th century." is not nutral.
"Iran as a negative cancer tumor in the region" is offensive.
"If middle east were a united Arab country with enough surplus and economical growth we should never see these terrorist movements. Ofcourse still power computition would continue but in a much more friendly manner." Is conjecture and "friendy manner" (!) is just ridiculous.
Please, someone who knows more about pan-turkism than me, sort this out.
*Sorry but Pan- Turkism is an ideology and it doen't have to be neutral. Turks deserve the best. Deliogul 13:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pan-Turkism Article is Not Nutral

message: I have found out that the Chinese language link doesn't actually link to an equivalent page on the ZH site, but to a page about the Göktürks. However I cannot read Chinese and am unable to ascertain whether the ZH site has a page about Turkic peoples. If, by any chance, someone here could find out, I feel it's worth fixing. I have left things as-is for now. F. Delpierre 16:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese language link 

message: I notice the tell-tale passive of non-attribution in the following: "Comparisons of the ancient Sumerian language with modern Turkic languages (labeled as Ural-Altaic) have allegedly shown some common vocabulary. Based on these comparisons, it is claimed that the Sumerians were the most ancient documented Turkic people," Can we get some sources and more detail, so that the reader may assess on what grounds this unusual assertion lies? --Wetman 18:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sumerian" connection 

message: Hello, i placed the POV and the factual accuracy tag because from reading the article , it would seem that you are pushing a pro-islamic, pro-turkish - from turkey - (as opposed to turkic) point of view that includes factual fallacies. Remember that turkic is a linguistic term.  It's very similar to stating that all people who speak the spanish language (filipinos, latin americans, people from spain, some people in africa) belong to one race and ethnic group when that is not the case.  Or that the afro-caribeans and africans who speak french share a similar ethnic and racial heritage as people from France and Quebec.  Many people in their history have adopted languages out of convenience or through conquest and it does not suggest a common ancestry.  however, it would seem that you are suggesting that all turkic peoples possess the same ancestry and that the Turkish people in turkey are at the forefront of that ancestry.   However, I wanted to at least discuss with you your sources for the history of turkic peoples as most historians and people who have written about turkic peoples do not seem to share to share your ideas.  Further, most historians approach the turkic people from a linguistic history and not an ethnic and racial history that you seem to be approaching it from.  Please elaborate your sources for this history as I have never read this history that you have written in any neutral textbook. Further, the history that you have written is pretty non-neutral and has factual exagerrations and errors.  I haven't reverted it because I did not want to start an edit war although on your discussion page other people would seem to have taken offense at some of your previous changes to their articles.  Kennethtennyson 05:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: to Codex sinaiticus

message: Many turkish historians and anthropologist belive that North American tribes are our cloase cousins. As far as I know, there is no complete comperision of Turkish and NA tribe languages, but is sounds very familiar to Turkish linguist. Shaman culture and ways look very similar to me. For example, shaman turks shaved their head but a tail before going to a battle, to make it easier for the enemy to cut their head off, when they fall. This would make it easier to for their soul to reach the great steps of Teng Tengri ( Sky God ) and they would ride together with their fathers and grands. You would remember that Native American "skinning" has the same purpose , warriors do shave their hair but a tail, and hope to meet their anchestors at great plains of Manitu. An enemy who comitted suicide is not worth the respect , like in Gn.Castors case.  Also, another good lead is the great similarity in carpets. Tents is another similarity. Yakut Turks should be the most similar ones. The missing things are the horses and iron, which can be explained with being crossing.
Native American tribes and languages are far from homogenous.  Please keep this in mind before making any sweeping generalisations.  Codex Sinaiticus 15:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turks and North American Tribes 

message: I have read much on the Huns and Hungarians.  Based on the following published peer reviewed DNA studies I will add the Huns and Hungarians(Magyars) to the list of Turkic peoples.
"Probable ancestors of Hungarian ethnic groups: an admixture analysis"
C. R. GUGLIELMINO1, A. DE SILVESTRI2 and J. BERES
MtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms in Hungary: inferences from the palaeolithic, neolithic and Uralic influences on the modern Hungarian gene pool
The first paper notes that the living Hungarians have heavy influence from the Slavs and Germans.  The conclusion that both give is that the Magyars were mostly of Cenral Asain Mongol-Turkic origin. 
The language debate is irrelvant to this article as language and ancestry do not have to be related and many times they are not [as the second citation attest to].  For example you can find Arabic spoken by one billion people who are not Arabs or related to Arabs.  According to this research the Hungarians would be people of mongol of turkic origin who some how speak a uralic language. :-/ --Hfarmer 00:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Huns and Hungarians as Turkic People

message: This article is a mess! It'S not only partially wrong, but it also reflects pan-turkist thoughts and views. It's neither neutral nor scietifically correct. For example, NON-TURKIC peoples like Cimmerians and Sythians are claimed Turks - something that has ALWAYS been rejected by schollars and experts. 
This article needs:
a) to be cleaned up
b) to be based on scientific works and not some pan-turkist garbage
* Some pov cleanup is needed, but the article is quoting someone else who equated Cimmerians and Ishkuz etc. with Turks (Oghuz)... Plenty of sources  equating Ishkuz and Oghuz, both classical and modern sources, can be found, and these have to be admitted as sources, not hidden.  The exact affinities of Cimmerians et al. are a dispute and a question mark -- please do not bestow the term "Scholars and experts" on only ONE side of the dispute; that is the definition of POV.  If possible, giving both sides is preferable.  (And by the way, I'm no Pan-Turk, nor even a Turk.) Codex Sinaiticus 15:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thsi article is a total mess! 

message: A lot of the stuff (such as the Alp er Tunga paragraph) in this section seems irrelevant.  The etymology of the word "Turk" given in the dictionaries I searched (1, 2, 3) is the following:
Middle English, from Old French Turc, from Turkish Türk, from Old Turkic türk, strong.
The Persian term "Turanian" may have an etymological connection to the word "Turk," but the Turanians known to Zarathustra were in all prabability Scythians or a related tribe, who spoke an Iranian language, as the histrical Turks are only known to have reached that far west in 6th century AD (before this they seem to have lived near the western borders of China).  The Persians used the term "Turanian" to refer to Central Asian nomads in general, not necessarily Turkic peoples in particular.--Rob117 17:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably, you have read Firdavsi. Hovewer, I disagree with you at one critical point which "Turanian" doesn't refer to Turks. Because, most of the historians are agree that " Turanian " was used to refer Turkic tribes.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 21:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature section 

message: No one is accusing the Turks of being Armenians - although clearly many Turkish have some degree of Armenian blood.  I am happy to discuss DNA, but please stop deleting other people's work before talking about.  You have now reverted for the fourth time today.  Please do not do that again.  Please explain your objection--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TuzsuzDeliBekir has violated the 3 revert rule. Some admin needs to hear about this. --Khoikhoi 18:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Firstly, there is no such link in another ethnic pages, but in this page. Secondly, I want you to show enough number of research about DNA.  According to my expriences, experts don't compare specific DNAs like Turks vs Armenians. Without a doubt, there is no pure blood, but saying .... percent of DNA comes from Greeks, ... percent of DNA comes from Armenians is such a debate that no one like to hear. Writer and editors must have respect for sensitiveness of ethnic groups. Before editing or reverting they should be quite sure about their proff. If we come back to apperance, it is mostly up to environment. For ins. some experts claim that American Indians has Turkic blood. If we go forward with this statement, they definetely dont seem like neither an Asian, nor Turkish. Consequently, before being quite sure about it, please delete the statement and go to talk page for futher discussion.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, Khoikhoi alerted me to this discussion.  After looking at the problem, though, I have to say that TuzsuzDeliBekir has some good points.  Most other "ethnic" articles don't have this kind of lengthy "physical description" blather... Do we really need it here?  And as for "DNA evidence", ya know, you can usually tell people who put their stock in DNA, its written all over their face...  Truth is, people mix with other peoples in all kinds of ways, and no one is "homogenous" (whatever that would be).  Ever seen a genealogical chart?  Once you go back a few centuries, the typical person's ancestors lived in all kinds of different countries.  Also, I don't think our friend here is trying to deny Turkic origins.  Usually, the problem is revisionists trying to downplay those origins. But in this case, nothing needs to be said about "physical appearances" of what is today so diverse a group, and nothing, or perhaps only a very brief mention, should be given to "DNA" theories, that are all flawed, as they attempt to generalize entire modern day populations that are not homogenous. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. But I still defend that this page doesnt need to have a ' physical apperance  ' link. Again thank you for your comment.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think it is important to mention what the Turkic peoples look like. Especially because of the fact that there is so much propaganda on this subject. --Khoikhoi 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic Origins of Modern Turks 

message: Are they any accuracy issues left with this article? There hasn't been any discussion here for awhile. Otherwise, if there is no objection, I will remove the accuracy tag. SouthernComfort 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues

message: I believe the definition of the term "Turanian" is incorrect - it has the opposite meaning of "Iranian," i.e. "not Aryan" or "not Iranian." Same applies to "Turan" of course - opposite meaning of "Iran." It may have an additional meaning, but I've never read anything about it meaning "dark." SouthernComfort 01:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   What did you read about it ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Turanian" was used in Shahnameh meaning 'bad' and 'dark' as oppose to 'good' and 'bright' (Zoroastrian philosophy), It never meant Turk as far as I know --Kash 10:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Turanian

message: I removed the "Translations for Turk" section because I fail to see any point to it. Is there any? --Khoikhoi 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removed 

message: It seems like we have a shy vandal  138.88.206.223  who does follows his vandalization urge and then reverts back. Hoping to pass some irrelavant message in this article about Armenian mass killing early last centuary in Ottoman Empire. Have look it is rather funny.  md 17:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that or he changed his mind about vandalizing the page. I've seen other vandals do this before. --Khoikhoi 19:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very shy  vandal !   

message: This article seems to be partly POV (see navigation list). Claiming that Huns and certain other people were "Turkic" is POV and like claiming that "eraly Germanic peoples were English or Swedish". This needs to be corrected. Till then ---> "neutrality" box. Tajik 15:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Template:Turkic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Tajik 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Turkic 

message: Gentlemen, this edit war is becoming ridiculous; especially when the solution is so simple.  JUST CITE YOUR SOURCES!!  There are no sources cited in the entire section, technically it can all be deleted as Original Research.  If there's a "historian" or a "linguist" that makes these claims, cite the source instead of making it weasely.  Likewise, if you have a specific Turkish Nationalist that makes these claims, just cite the source. Otherwise somebody like me might just delete this entire section as POV and OR.  For reference, see this note from Jimbo himself regarding unsourced statements.--WilliamThweatt 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Metb82, by checking the history of this article, one can find that it wasn't even me who added the Turkic nationalists part, it was in fact User:Lao Wai. I'll contact him and ask if he can bring sources. —Khoikhoi 17:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Turkic Roots" edit war 

message: I really don't want to get involved in any of these prolonged discussions, as it would be more beneficiary for all of us to spend more time making constructive contributions than engaging in dead-end discussions. Besides, I don't have the background on the subject or the fluency in English to sustain a decent discussion. However, I couldn't help but react to the following part of the article.
Currently, large-scale, detailed DNA research to establish genetic genealogies of Turkic peoples is scant. Evidently, today a great number of Turks do not share this genetic phenotype. Genetic studies performed in four towns across modern Turkey have demonstrated the dilution of the Turkic strain. Only around 30% of those studied possessed a gene marker relating them to a central Asian (i.e. Turkic) ancestor, yet all those studied were Turkish citizens. Altogether, the story of Turkic peoples is a story of admixture and two-way cultural assimilation.
Turkic identity, therefore, exists on two levels. On one, it is a race of (predominantly mongoloid) people from central Asia. On another, it is like an ocean current, spreading and mingling with far-flung waters, and giving rise to a broad-shared history, language, and cultural values transcending genes and racial categorisation.
The statements in the first paragraph of this part are generalizing Turkic people using an inadequate information about people of Turkey, collected through a method which is not yet scientifically approved at global scale. There is also an apparent contradiction in the first two sentences which first adress the scantness of the evidence then concludes with generalization based on this evidence ("Evidently, today a great number of Turks.."). Having said that, which really made me react is that such a statement can be offending to some people (including me) as it's basically stating that "statiscally" 70% of Turks (or Turkish Republic Citizens) are not of Turkic origins, i.e. of "pure blood". The second paragraph is even more desperate. While the factuality of the information presented is clearly disputable in this paragraph, the sentencing together with the comparision is no way close to presenting any encyclopedic information.
Please accept my apologies if I have attracted attention to this discussion which otherwise has been quiet for a while now. Regards DeliDumrul 23:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA Discussion 

message: I am curious if there are the possible historical or mythical correlations between references of Gog & Magog (in the book of Ezekiel) with Gokturk.
The book of Ezekiel was written during the times when Turks did not call themselves as Gokturks or even Turks. The book of Ezekiel belongs to 6th century BC where the name Gokturk belongs to 7-8th century AD. At the era of the Gokturk empire neighboring people did not call Turks as Gokturks, just Turks. Some scholars claim that Gokturks were the elite ruler class of the Turkish Empire, an empire called Gokturk never existed the empire was called as Turk or Turuk Empire. So trying to connet Gokturks to Gog is similar to a funny connection of AngloSaxon to Saxaphone... But some people claim Turks and some other other Asiatic nations being the Gog-Magog in the book of Ezekiel. This blief was common during the Medieval Times. Especially when Seljuk Turks Captured Jerusalem. Please read the article on Gog and Magog in Wikipedia. Sincerely. Tengriteg
: The "Turks" have never called themselvs" Turks", but the name was given to them by the Muslims. The name "Türk" is taken from "Gök-Türk", a tribe or family of unknown origin, probably once subject to the Mongol "Rouran". After the collapse of the "Rouran" kingdom, certain nomanic peoples of unknown origins became known as "Gök-Türks" (probably the name of the leading clan) and it is believed that they had similar costums and spoke similar languages. The "Gök-Türks" allied themselvs with Sassanid Persians to fight the Hephthalites (who were later defeated and eliminated by the Persian Shah "Khusrow Anushirvan"), and after the fall of the Hephthalites, they allied themselvs with the Arabs against Persia and conquered large areas in Central Asia which Arabs later named "Bilad al-Tork" ("land of the Turks") - obviously a reference to the leading clan of the "Gök-Türks". This Arabic name became known as "Turkistan" in Persian, and from then on, all kinds of nomadic peoples from Central Asia were labled "Turks", no matter if they were Iranic, Slavic, Mongolian, Turkic, or whatever. Due to Perso-Islamic rule in Central-Asia (the first Turkic clans were converted to Islam by the Persian Samanid dynasty), those Central-Asian nomads adopted the name "Turk" for themselvs. Other so-called "Turkic peoples" who did not have any contacts to Muslim conqueres never took the name "Turk", such as Turkic-speaking peoples in Europes, who became known as "Bulgars" or "Tartars" (from "Tartaros", the Greek god of the underworld, as a reference to the brutality of Central-Asian nomads). 
: The modern usage of the term "Turk" (for the Anatolian population) was more or less forced on the population of Turkey by the so-called "Young Turks" - the educated elite of the Ottoman Kingdom - who, demographically, were only a tiny minority in Anatolia (comparable to the use of the terms "Roman", "Mongol", or "Persian" who themselvs have always been a small minority, but - for some reason - gave their name to entire kingdoms and peoples).
: So, I doubt that the term "Gog" has anything to do with the old-Türkish word "Gök" ("blue") which was only part of the name given to a certain family or clan.
: Tājik 14:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the name "Göktürk": the words didn't start with letter "G" in Turkish language at that time.  The real name is "Kök Türük". "Kök" means the "sky" and color of "blue". In modern Turkish it became "Gök" meaning "sky" only. We called ourselves "Türk" before Islam came.  The first contacts with Muslim Arabs occured at the 7th century AD with Muslim conquest of Iran.  --Gokhan 08:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Who cares about a minority discussion about 900 years before?  These are all hollow discussions with a political agenda.  Yes yes yes, we came in 11th century, yes we were barbarian invaders(!), yes there were Greeks and Armenians around in Anadolu, yes they were the craddle of western civilization or the oldest christian nation or both etc etc etc... I don't understand the purpose of this debate.  Times change, nations change, territories change hands, empires come and go by... just live with it.  As a Turkish person I'm tired of constantly being bombarded for a history of 1000 years... enough already.  Peace --Gokhan 08:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gog and Gokturk 

message: I'm fairly sure there are no Bahá'í peoples, Turkic or not. E.g., they are not mentioned in Bahá'í#Demographics. Any objections to removing this? --Lev 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lev, There are considerable number of Bahá'í Turks, specially in Azerbaijan Republic and South Azerbaijan (Iran), Turkey and Turkmenistan. In fact the first Bahá'í  House of Worship was built in Ashgabat Turkmenistan at the time of Abdulbaha. The funder of the  Bahá'í  fate and his successor, Abdulbaha spend most of his life in the Ottoman territory.  Mehrdad 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bahá'í Turkic peoples??? 

message: I can't locate them in any of these maps. This article needs improvement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slntssssn (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish minority in Bulgaria & Greece, Iraqi Turkmens, Iranian Azeris... 

message: While our friend here providing us with a Link to the Ardahan governorship I could not find that picture back in their website. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE ISN NOT SUCH A PICTURE THERE, BUT PLEASE GIVE ME THE EXACT LINK! I need this to see whether this dance is Turkich or not even if it is taken from Ardahan governorship does not make the dance Turkish, because the area is also populated by Georgians, Azeris, Kurds and before also Armenians. The dance and cloths are not Turkish.  According to me the dance is a Caucasian one (Georgian, Azeri or Armenian)  and is not an Anatolian either Turkish or Kurdish dance. There are plenty of pictures from Turks in turkey why don't you take another picture which represent them better? --Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Man, Im saying that I wanted to check it with the source but there was no sucha picture there. And if there was such a picture it does not mean that it is an Anatolian Turkish dance. Every one sees it is a Caucasian one. I DO THINK that in the list there is a picture needed which represents Turks of Turkey, but a Picture which is representative. If you have such a picture upload it please. I have no idea who has been the uploader of this image. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went there and saw that you put your comments there, so lets give him time to reply. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And? It cannot be unresolved for ages.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again the Ardahan Picture 

message: I expanded the caption of the picture in the lead paragraph from
:Turkmen girl.
to
:Turkmen girl. The Turkmen people are one of many Turkic peoples.
The reason is that this makes clear to the reader, who may look at the image first, how the image relates to the subject of the article. In the text the first mention of the Turkmens as a people is only many screens and sections down, in section number 6 on History. However, this change was reverted, without edit summary. Why?  --Lambiam 08:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was wrong with expanding the caption? 

message: I am adding Kipchaks under the links somebody forgot, but I am offended a little (Kipchak my self).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atilla1234 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link goes to the article Kipchaks, which is really about the ancient Kipchaks. The Cumans are treated as extinct, with all verbs in the past tense. Should we have an article on modern Kipchaks?  --Lambiam 10:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kipchaks Under Turkic Peoples Links 

message: Please stop adding this image. It is unreferenced and entirely a product of its creator's imagination. No source describes a flag of this type in use among the Gokturks. That this image survived deletion is in direct contravention to Wikipedia policies. In any event, it has no encyclopedic value in this article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: E104421, I disagree with you regarding flag being sourced.  Gumilev's study regarding the use of a wolf's head for a totem and the look and design of the flag from the Flags of the World website are totally separate things.  The flag is unsourced.  The Flags of the World website even uses the word "alleged" in reference to the flag.  Using Gumilev as a source for the flag is like trying to reconstruct the US flag based upon the common description "stars and stripes". --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A flag featuring a wolf's head is more descriptive than "stars and stripes" where there can be many arrangements. I wonder if there is a source about the color though. Filanca (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point.  A flag featuring a wolf's head ISN'T more descriptive.  For example, which direction is the head supposed to be looking?  Which area of the flag is the head supposed to be placed in?  And as you pointed out, what colors are supposed to be used?  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Besides, were the teeth visible, and if so which ones? How long were the ears compared to the rest of the head? My point is, unless we have a copy of this flag, which is impossible to find, there may be no description good enough for an exact reconstruction. All current images drawn out of descriptions are only representations, just to visualise something, to get as close as possible to the thing described. By the way, I dont think all flags of Gokturks were exactly the same as each other in a time and place where there was not internet or pringing presses. As for color, I think blue is for the sake of "Gokturk" name but as for green, I have no idea. Filanca (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, but you must realize that no one has any clue as to what fair description the Office of the President of Turkey is even using to create such a flag.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:GokturkFlag.png]] 

message: Jingiby claims that Turkic peoples are from different races. he claim this idea from the (non-existed) source of brittanica. but sources in today are show that these eurasian peoples are share the same history and have a same roots(from central asia). i suggest that the entrance of the page should be re-write by neutral academics.(not by Jingiby) --Orkh (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's the Jingiby's POV . The exact text of britannica is the follow : "Turkic peoples display a great variety of ethnic types."  I think you may not change "Turkic peoples" to "Turkic people" and "The Turkic peoples are various linguistically related Eurasian peoples" to "The Turkic people are an ethnic Eurasian people" . Thank you--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if it continues , the page should be protected . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the problem of the user:Jingiby 

message: The section on Mythology seems to be miserable ! In fact , the mythology of the Turkic peoples that spoke Turkic languages , is not alike and almost no element is common between Iranian Azeri and the central Asian Turkic language people .Neither Turks of Turkey , nor Azeris of Iran and Az.Rep have ever practiced Tengriism and other Shamanistic religions as it is written in this sentence :"Tengriism and other Shamanistic religions had been the dominant religion for most of history"! Zend-Avesta , never talks about the Turks and talks about Turanians that where not Turkic but Indo-European language .Tengriism is not a monotheistic religion.Epic of King Gesar is not relevant to any Turkish Mythology and that is Tibetan.Almost no Muslim (scholar or not scholar) , believes that sura 108 of the Quran (Al-Kawthar) has any connection to Tibetan Geser and Togarmah in the Bible has nothing to do with the Turks . I think the whole section needs a major edit .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Mythology 

message: There are more than 10 million Tatars, and removing them from the page is inexcusable revisionism, Nonsenseshame. Also, you appear to be engaging in an edit war rather than a discussion. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 21:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The Scythian 07:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tatars

message: why do racist people in here always attack turks. wikipedia should use filters for those pple.--195.174.9.35 (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Please take it to the talk page" means "please engage in discussion regarding the issues". If you have something to say - which you must, considering the reversions you've been doing - say it. Just saying the word "RACISM" doesn't count as explanation/discussion/etc. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 14:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new problem: destroying the turkic roots by idiots 

message: *What exactly is this edit war over again?!? I forgot... The Scythian 16:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Err... why did you RV my edits when both you and I were stopping the vandal IP-hopper from reverting constructive edits? ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 20:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question...I think I got alittle confused a bit. I'll just, ah, step aside now, and tittle my thumbs for awhile... The Scythian 04:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War??? 

message: The citation of scholars supporting a Uralic-Altaic linkage is in the very article you cite noted as wikipedia:Fringe.  "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is." We should cover notable fringe theories: the article you cite notes it as "the Turanist conspiracy theory". ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 11:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: The image :Image:Yoruks.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Yoruks.jpg

message: Countries and autonomous regions where a Turkic language has official status. This is all easily verifiable. WillMall (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The map does NOT show all of Turkey as being Turkic speaking; It shows that Turkey has a Turkic language as its official Language. The Map shows countries and regions where a Turkic Language is official.  This is easily all  verified.  Official Language of Uzbekistan is Uzbek etc. Consider this your first warning and stop Vandalizing the page. I am going to report you for starting edit wars and disruptive editing. WillMall (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if I don't report you first, kiddo. Your attitude and tone is out of line for a Wikipedia editor. Behave, or I am going to go get an adult! The Scythian 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Map of Turkic languages 

message: thumb|150px| Red colors are Independent countries, Light red colors are Autonomous Regions, Pinks are settled Turkic people.
This image was part of "language" section and is NOT ACCURATE because it includes Kurds. This picture should supposadly show the Turkic speaking population of world ( in contrast to the main image which shows official language). It is NOT supposed to show countries where Turkic has official status and where it is a mother language. This is a problem, because for example this it tags Azeri & Qashqai people of Iran ( where Turkic is not an official language), yet includes Kurds in Turkey as part of Turkish speaking population. This is simply unacceptable that even existance of langauge of Kurdish population is denied. 
This article simply is taken over & runned by people who are blind by fake nationalistic ideas. "Wanting" Kurds to be Turk will NOT make them Turkic. This is an Encyclopedia not a Pan-Turk nationalistic campaign for god's sake. It amazes me how editors have chosen an image with intention to pretend to "increase" Turkic population and land.--74.12.96.169 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image:Turkic people