Talk:Gagauz people

message: --Surak 12:23, 10 Oct 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Culinary

message: --Sifakis 03:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: The hero of Liberty was also from Gagauz Turkish origin. Are you planing to prepare a seperate section about famous Gagauz people? See you, Deliogul 11:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Enver Pasha]]

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "related groups" info removed from infobox

message: Cheboksari (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of Gagauz people

message: Cheboksari (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkish Moesia and its Balkan relations

message: Cheboksari (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the Gagauz

message: Cheboksari's essay is informative. But I would like to add two more points about the origin. 
* According tp article the first theory about the origin is the Seljuk to Balkan hypothesis. Well I think this is suspicious. In 13th century Balkan peninsula was under the control of Byzantine Empire and other non muslim states. I don't think they'd welcome the refuges from a muslim country. (After Berke Khan's conversion to Islam, Crimean hypothesis seems more plausible.) 
* In Turkey it is generally believed that the origin of Gagauz people is a group of tribes named Uz ( a branch of Oghuz ) who followed Pechenegs to east Europe in the 11th century. Although evidence for this theory is weak, there is some linguistic evidence. Gagauz people speak south western Turkic, ie Oghuz. (Kumans spoke north western Turkic.)    Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the origin 

message: I do not have any idea how this word « Gagauz » should be spoken. What is vowel sound of « au » ? Is the « z » silent ? Are syllables stressed equally, or does stress occur on the final syllable ? I would prefer an IPA indication, if possible. Thank you for your help. Charvex (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation and stressed syllable? 

message: To say they are Turkic is mindless and crazy - how can they be when they have blue, green eyes and some have brown, blond hair - it doesnt add up  -there are no such turkic people and there has never been. The Turkish people are almost half Greek and Goth hence their blond hair and blue eyes while the Kumans, as is proven by genetic tests done in Hungary (google it) were hald white half Turkic/Asian hence their Asiatic yet blue, green eyes with blond hair. Even more so if they are actually pure Bulgars - as one theory says; if they are then they are not Turkic since the Bulgars were Iranic (2010 genetic tests, google it) This just proves the proverb "The tiny fraction of the world population is intelligent and smart, the rest is not".
::I haven‘t got well, what the post is exactly meaning (has anybody?), still I‘ll try there to answer. Gagauz are obviously Turkic, and that is undoubted, since they are speaking an undoubtedly Turkic language. There is for sure no reason for them speaking a Turkic language, if they wouldn‘t be based on the Turkic ethnical ground. Obviuosly if they have European appearance, that is because they have assimilated submitted local and close Slavonic or another populations (Greeks are depicting Thracians having fair skin and light hair). 
::The scientists are agreeing that Turks settling permanently in Balkans were important as number, but still a minority, much probably only a small minority in their own states and areas. Balkan Turks (like those in Moesia) certainly conquered, occupied, dominated and determined local populations in parts of Balkans. There were few waves of the Turkish settlers on Balkans, starting with the Bulgarians and Huns since 4th and 5th. Turkic-speaking Onogondurs from the Caucasian Bulgaria in 7th and then in 11th Pechenegs, Uz and Kumans were establishing and forming two Turkish Moesian states. The Tatars and Ottomans were appearing in 13th and 14th, but becoming Muslimized they could be much difficult attached to Orthodox faith. 
::It is widely agreed, that populations should be defined ethnically from the ethnical ground playing principal role for their formation, and their culture, language and society, no matter what would be its actual part in their genetic and racial origin. For example Indian populations are defined as Aryan (Aryans coming to India were depicted as having fair skin, light hair, blue eyes) – no matter of their racial belonging. Also Turks in Turkey (was the post speaking of them?) are defined as Turks, though they are actually belonging widely to the European or "Caucasian" race (of Mediterranean) and don‘t have the Mongol type of their Turkish predecessors. 
::Speaking there of Bulgarians, the Onogondurs coming on Balkans from Caucasian Bulgaria of Kubrat were most probably indeed Turcisized Scythians (North Iranians), but they were only a population of the Caucasian Bulgaria, not having Bulgarian origin, becoming Turcisized and Bulgarized (by their free will, but mostly as becoming there accepted – having much close society, way of life, culture – being the steppe horse nomadic peoples) from influence of their Turkic neighbors and rulers from Turkish khaganate and Caucasian Bulgaria. 
::Turks or Bulgarians have not supported policy of forced Turcization or Bulgarization, except one happening naturally for their most close, related, trusted and accepted and supported assimilated populations, sometimes Turks would be so probably assimilating some from principal populations of their states. True Bulgarians like Kutrigurs settling in so called Volga Bulgaria were much probably then belonging to Mongol race of Turks, though could be having significant another racial touches, and also lately would be somehow mixing local Uralian and another populations. 
::Turks were generally not uniting populations like Slavonics, and most specially in their own Turkish states, being sure there dominating, culturally, socially, politically and militarilly superior, having too much different society, way of life, subsistence, culture – Turks representing steppe horse nomadic peoples (only Ottomans with their great empire succeeding turning those Turks into peasants, representing generally special privileged dominating populations because of Muslim faith). Despite that assimilating local and close submitted Slavonics or another in any different ways sure wouldn‘t be excluded. Quite common way of ethnical „mixtures“ would be, widely spread among Turks, picking some alien women for wives. Also Turks during their military campaigns were taking big number of prisoners, becoming slaves, and which would be later so partially assimilated from them (if not becoming the state slaves those prisoners would be closely relating the society, way of life and subsistence or culture of those Turks). 
::Speaking of Gagauz again, is sure about them being Turks and having racial type of their submitted and assimilated populations of Europe. 
::They could be defined eventually as being Turkic-speaking, which for sure wouldn‘t be defining them rightfully – speaking of their history and ethnicity, society, language and culture. 
::Same like the Turks in Turkey or in those numerous Balkan parts (where belonging widely to Central European racial type), the Gagauz are Turkic. It‘s simple as that. Cheboksari (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Turkic" 

message: the chart indicates 540 Gagauz in Bulgaria but the text says "nearly 20,000".  In any case the cart seems problematic.  45 in Romania? And if upwards of 3,000 in the US, Brazil, and Canada, why did this not make the chart? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  total population 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gagauz people. 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/20070706003257/http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/ to http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120072310/http://www.perepis2002.ru/content.html?id=11&docid=10715289081463 to http://www.perepis2002.ru/content.html?id=11&docid=10715289081463
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302004629/http://www.recensamant.ro/datepr/tbl4.html to http://www.recensamant.ro/datepr/tbl4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219024839/http://www.iatp.md/ladom/downloads/M3.doc to http://www.iatp.md/ladom/downloads/M3.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gagauz people. 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/20071029061551/http://enc.mail.ru/article/1900020242 to http://enc.mail.ru/article/1900020242
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gagauz people. 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/20110706142940/http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=83&id=247 to http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=83&id=247
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225162947/http://www.yahadinunum.org/blog/our-work/moldova-trip-5-december-11-26-2014-3/ to http://www.yahadinunum.org/blog/our-work/moldova-trip-5-december-11-26-2014-3/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I feel like this could be made it two or even just one second.  Three is clearly unnecessary.  Just combine the information  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darokrithia (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics, Genetic Origins, and Origins 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Gagauz people →  – Wikipedia tends to avoid naming peoples and ethnicities using "people" on their title unless there's no choice. We cannot say "Frenches" or "Portugueses" and alternative opions (e. g. "Frenchmen") are unwanted for obvious reasons, so we say "French people" or "Portuguese people". In some ethnicities we can avoid using "people" to refer to them, like the Romanians, Russians, Bulgarians, etc.. This is the case of the Gagauz people, who can be called "Gagauzes" or "Gagauzians" (less common). They are called this way in pretty much every other Wikipedia, including the Romanian (Găgăuzi), Russian (Гагаузы), Turkish (Gagavuzlar) and Bulgarian (Гагаузи) and of course the Gagauz (Gagauzlar) ones (I listed these Wikipedias because they are the most related to the Gagauzes). "Gagauzes" is also more common than "Gagauz people", with the former getting 16,300 results in Google and the latter getting 14,100. For all of this, I believe "Gagauzes" would be a better option than the current title. Super Ψ Dro 20:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would be a good solution. It would be like using German (ethnic group). It does make more sense with the Gagauzes as you've shown they are sometimes called like that in singular, but I see that option as the least preferable out of the alternatives we have. Super Ψ Dro 19:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I guess it's better to keep this title then. Super Ψ Dro 16:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should be at Gagauz or Gagauz (people). Their name is a plural noun, not an adjective. Either better meets the WP:CRITERIA of naturalness, precision, and consistency. —Michael Z. 16:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Gagauz can also be used in singular or as an adjective (Gagauz language), it is a demonym after all. Gagauz should stay as a disambiguation and not using parentheses is preferable, both in my opinion. Super Ψ Dro 17:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is also an adjective as in the compound noun Gagauz people, but the demonym is the noun Gagauz (WP:CRITERIA: conciseness, naturalness). And “people” in the current title is not a disambiguator, it is a proxy noun standing in for Gagauz. As has already been pointed out, we don’t usually title articles about nations with adjectives as Moldovan people, Romanian people, Ukrainian people, etcetera, so why make an exception here (WP:CRITERIA: consistency)? —Michael Z. 19:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

text: We don't seem to apply this for peoples whose name in singular is the same as in plural. Examples are the Sámi people, Ahom people, Altai people, Chuvash people and Cornish people. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  True that we don’t always, but I just found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), and it offers counter-examples. Maybe they’re not all at the best name, or maybe there are reasons for those examples. By my quick reading of it, I think Gagauz would fit that convention best. I also added “Gagauz people” to my unscientific relative-frequency survey above, and it is not the most common version in use. —Michael Z. 21:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving to Gagauz would require the people to be the primary topic – I don't think anybody is advocating that. The naming conventions for ethnicities have two common solutions for disambiguation: go for the plural if it has a distinct form and is commonly used (Germans), otherwise follow the pattern "X people" (like Zuni people, Igbo people..). The latter is not some sort of occasionally accepted aberration, but accounts for the larger group of articles. If this seems unusual to people here, that's probably because it's much more widespread outside Europe and the Middle East. – Uanfala (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn’t the nation the primary topic? Gagauz language is literally “the language of the Gagauz.” Gagauz-ia is literally the “country of the Gagauz.” (The rarely used Gagauzians is a sort of redundant back-formation, literally “inhabitants of the country inhabited by the Gagauz.”) —Michael Z. 16:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 April 2021 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This section is gibberish. It’s sourced, but the source is Russian, and apparently not available online. Perhaps someone with access can fix it. Peter Flass (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriages