Talk:Turkic peoples/Archive 2

message: Ottomans were Turkic so Turkey is a decendant of Ottomans so they are Turkic and Turkish?(cantikadam 12:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottomans were Turkic 

message: This is the worst written article i have yet come across. It does not cite any of its references, its very poorly written, and most of it seems to be origional research. This whole article may have to be re-written. When I have more time, I will fix some of the grammatical mistakes, and try to find sources and try to make the article less POV. But seriously, this article is really poorly written, this may take the efforts of many users to revamp.Khosrow II 16:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many Problems 

message: I just don't understand what's wrong with having both maps. That way everyone's happy...right? —Khoikhoi 00:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this map is horribly made. It is inaccurate and contradicts reliable sources. Look at the sources I used to make my map, pretty reliable. If we get to have two maps on every wikipedia articles expressing every point of view, do you know how hectic that would be? Lets also have the map that includes Kurds as Turkic speakers, how about that for a third map?Khosrow II 00:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map (again) 

message: How about no map at all, that way we can all be satisfied.Khosrow II 04:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution?

message: The factual accuracy and neutrality are quite different issues. If there exists factual inaccuracy this should be proven first in the talk/discussion page, before putting the tag. Therefore, i'm removing the tag and replacing it with "POV-check" tag. E104421 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute|Accuracy Dispute]]

message: Can someone please remove the "Türkler" from the infobox. Anatolian Turkish is not the language of all the Turkic peoples, Azeris for example call Turks "Türklər", and God knows how the non-Oghuz Turks spell it. IMO that infobox should be removed altogether though, as Turkic peoples are not one ethnic group despite what pan-Turkists want.--Bulgarin ot Egeyska Makedoniya 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Turkic is an ethnic group. the Turkic peoples of Central Asia and Siberia (Mongoloid features) and some Turkic tribes who have not mixed west of Central Asia (such as the Cepni) are ethnic Turks. However, Turks from Turkey, R. of Azerbaijan, European Turks, etc... are all Turkified peoples, not ethnic Turks.Khosrow II 01:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You say 'Turks from Turkey, R. of Azerbaijan, European Turks, etc... are all Turkified peoples, not ethnic Turks' :) my mouth is not enough to laugh this. Then i ask you, if all of these are turkified, who turkified these? iranians? :)
Do not be funny. Secondly, The term "Turkic" is generally considered to represent a broad linguistic characterization, and not necessarily an ethnic one (look and read the article carefully). So, all of Turks from Turkey, R. of Azerbaijan, European Turks, etc... are all Turkic peoples.--Karcha 02:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is it with these "racists" bringing their "race agenda's". Determining nations by "looks" and "racial" look is a product of the Nazi era and is totally rejected by mainstream modern scholors today.
Its not "race" which defines somebody, its culture, languge and identity. Therefore, Turks of Turkey, Azerbaijan and other West of Capsian Sea are Turks in every sense of the word and nobdoy has to right to claim otherwise.
There is no "Turkic" science-lab look which all Turks must look like in order to qualify becomming a Turk.
Turks never had "race" as a priority of becomming a Turk.
Claiming that there were no Turkic migrations is also absurd.
The 24 Oghuz Tribe confederacy is well documented as migrating to the West. During the Mongol expansion mass Turkic migrations occured. The Timurids settled 30,000 Kara-Tatar families West of the Caspian Sea and many other Turkic migrations occured.
Also Chepni is mentioned, Chepni are noted in the 24 Oghuz Tribes and have a strong presence in Turkey.
As do Tekke's, Antalya region was called (Tekke Sanjak) in Ottoman era and in Beylik period they were called the Tekke Beylik. Tekke tribe today is very influential in Turkmenistan as are the Salurds and Yomuts also in Turkey etc etc
--Johnstevens5 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: see link
The first Turkish immigration from Asia Minor took place under the Byzantine emperors before the conquest of the country. The first purely Turkish town, Yenije-Vardar, was founded on the ruins of Vardar in 1362. After the capture of Salonica (1430), a strong Turkish population was settled in the city, and similar colonies were founded in Monastir, Ochrida, Serres, Drama and other important places. In many of these towns half or more of the population is still Turkish. A series of military colonies were subsequently established at various points of strategic importance along the principal lines of communication. Before 1360 large numbers of nomad shepherds, or Yuruks, from the district of Konia, in Asia Minor, had settled in the country; their descendants are still known as Konariotes. Further immigration from this region took place from time to time up to the middle of the 18th century. After the establishment of the feudal system in 1397 many of the Seljuk noble families came over from Asia Minor; their descendants may be recognized among the beys or Moslem landowners in southern Macedonia . At the beginning of the 18th century the Turkish population was very considerable, but since that time it has continuously decreased. A low birth rate, the exhaustion of the male population by military service, and great mortality from epidemics, against which Moslem fatalism takes no pre-cautions, have brought about a decline which has latterly been hastened by emigration
The Turkish rural population is found in three principal groups: 
*the most easterly extends from the Mesta to Drama, Pravishta and Orfano, reaching the sea-coast on either side of Kavala, which is partly Turkish, partly Greek. 
*The second, or central group begins on the sea-coast, a little west of the mouth of the Strymon, where a Greek population intervenes, and extends to the north-west along the Kara-Dagh and Belasitza ranges in the direction of Strumnitza, Veles, Shtip and Radovisht. 
*The third, or southern, group is centred around Kailar, an entirely Turkish town, and extends from Lake Ostrovo to Selfije (Servia). The second and third groups are mainly composed of Konariot shepherds. Besides these fairly compact settlements there are numerous isolated Turkish colonies in various parts of the country. The Turkish rural population is quiet, sober and orderly, presenting some of the best characteristics of the race. Apostolos Margaritis 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The 1911 Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica about Yuruks, Kailars and Konariotes

message: All I wanna do is change the hyperlink from "Sakha" to "Sakha Republic" (Second paragraph of the geographical distribution section) because "Sakha Republic" will bring the reader to the page pertaining to area which is being discussed.
Momoboy 17:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the "Sakha/Yakut" link?  If so, shouldn't it link to Sakha language, not Sakha Republic? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Please swap the  template for the  template. (→Netscott) 21:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit protected

message: I've removed the infobox because it's only supposed to be used in articles about ethnic groups. The Turkic peoples are a group of ethnic groups—hence making the infobox inappropriate. Khoikhoi 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: removed! Tājik 10:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The infobox 

message: Claiming that the Mughals were a Turkic people, and mentioning some odd Turkish name given to them (Babür İmparatorluğu, a name that does not appear in ANY historical or scholarly sources), is pure POV. 
The Mughals were neither Turks in ethnicity (they were originally Mongols, descening from the Timurid and other Chingizid families of Central Asia --> Berlas Mongols), nor in language (starting with Humayun, they were certainly and evidently Persian-speakers; Akbar did not even know Chaghatay - he had to translate his grandfather's memos into Persian to read them! Later, the Mughals were evidently Urdu speaking!)
I do not know why certain users keep putting that POV paragraph into the article. They claim that it is sourced ... but not all sources are good. Why do they ignore the whole bunch of other, mostly authoritative sources (such as the works of Prof. B.F. Manz, THE leading expert on Timurid and Turco-Mongol history; see: B.F. Manz, "Tīmūr Lang", in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Online Edition, 2006)?! They only stick to certain versions of the Britannica ... only those that suite them. They totally ignore other sections of Britannica that actually have a totally different opinion on the issue. For example this one:
*"... Baber: The first Mughal, or Mongol, emperor of India (1526–30) and founder of the Mughal Dynasty there was Baber. He also won distinction as a military commander, a gifted poet and diarist, a statesman, and an adventurer. As ruler of the principality of Fergana in Turkestan, his birthplace, Baber first tried to recover Samarkand, the former capital of the empire founded by his Mongol ancestor Timur Lang ..." 
The Columbia Encyclopedia states:
*"... Timur (timoor') or Tamerlane (tăm'urlān), c.1336–1405, Mongol conqueror, b. Kesh, near Samarkand. ..." 
*"... Akbar  (ăk'bär) [key], 1542–1605, Mughal emperor of India (1556–1605); son of Humayun, grandson of Babur. ... Although he was himself illiterate, Akbar's courts at Delhi, Agra, and Fatehpur Sikri were centers of the arts, letters, and learning. He was much impressed with Persian culture, and because of him the later Mughal empire bore an indelible Persian stamp. ..."
One of the most important and strongest sources - only second to Prof. B.F. Manz's article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam - is the article of Prof. F. Lehmann in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Referring to Babur, he states:
*"... His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural infleunce in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results ..." PDF download 
The paragraph about the Mughals should be removed. Even IF some people believe that they should be listed, only because their FIRST ruler (Babur) wrote his memoires in Turkic, the paragraph should be removed because it's controversial. Memoires do not prove anything, especially in regard of the fact that Humayun's biography is written in Persian (by his sister Gulbadan Begum), and that Shah Bahadur II is known as one of the greatest Urdu poets! 
There are no historical documents porving the claim that the Mughals were a "Turkic people" ... NONE of the official state-documents of the empire was in ANY Turkic language, NONE of the ruling kings is known as a Turkic writer, nationalists, or whatever. If someone disputes these facts, he should provide reliable sources!
In no way the Mughals were a "Turkic people" ... neither in origin, nor in ethnicity, culture, language, or influence. Tājik 10:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mughals 

message: I was against removing the infobox earlier, however since it has been pointed out to me that a similar infobox was removed at Iranian peoples, I think that it would not be a problem if it were removed and replaced with some other images of Turkic culture in general. The article needs extensive work in any case... Baristarim 14:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be enough pictures, wouldnt it clutter up the article to include more?Azerbaijani 22:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox