This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ottomans were Turkic so Turkey is a decendant of Ottomans so they are Turkic and Turkish?( cantikadam 12:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC))
Response: Good question. The Turks of Turkey or both Turkic and Turkish. Turkic means the those peoples who speak languages that are part of the Turkic family of languages. Turkish is the term for people associated with Turkey.
Momoboy 17:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Momoboy 11-18-06
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)
to make the map i put up there, i used many different maps including the one Zaparojdik wants to put it. do not take my map out again unless you have good reason because i used the map you want when i made my map, including other more reliable maps. Khosrow II 16:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Perharps Azerbaijani will be useful to understand me. The reason is its not shows right! so I'll remove it always and I very laughed when i see Iranian Azerbaijan :) Zaparojdik 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Zaparojdik 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The map is great and I appreciate all the effort people are putting in, but it is Original Research. The Wikipedia is rule is No Originial Research - see, if I can get it to work - WP:NOR. You have to find a map that someone else has published on the web or in a book that is fair use. Lao Wai 08:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The article claims that these 2 dynasties were Turkic. This contradicts the information given in these articles. Tājik 03:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Mughals and Timurids were Turkic, unfortunately we have some extremist Pan-Iranists who like to deny anything Turkic at all.
Mughals were never Mongol, this is a misnomer, it has no basis in reality. Babur never called himself a Mongol or showed any ties to them. He and Timur saw themselves as Turks, if they percieved and highlighted this point than we have no other option but to accept this.
Its no good trying to tell people who are dead what they are, its ridiculous and this kind of shambolic nonsense has no room in an encyclopedia.
As I know they speak Turkish offically...
Where did you get this idea from? Lots of "ethnic Turks" live there. Same thing applies to north-east, too. Haydarhan
So it is like a France born Zulu's mother language is Afrikaan? ( cantikadam 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
That section is irrelevant and way POV. For example, it says that the monarchs were Turkic, thats not true. They were of mixed Turkic, Mongolic, and Iranic origin for the most part. Secondly, it says that because pakistani's claim descent that they are descendents of the Mughals, that there is genetic relationship between them and Turkic peoples. If that isnt one of the stupidest thigns I have ever read, then I dont know what is. Where is the source for this? Some crazy Pan Turk website? Khosrow II 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Infact we went further to proove him wrong and took Babur's actual words to him.
Andijanis are all Turks; everyone in town or bazar knows Turki. The speech of the people resembles the literary language; hence the writings of Mir 'Ali-sher Nawa'i, though he was bred and grew up in Hin (Herat), are one with their dialect. Good looks are common amongst them. The famous musician, Khwaja Yusuf, was an Andijani.
THESE ARE HIS ACTUAL WORDS! He wrote them, if he was a Mongol he would have wrote that he and his town and descendants were Mongols but he doesn't so it doesn't matter what a cetain member says, what matters is what Babur himself writes.
Mughals and Timurids were Turkic, unfortunately we have some extremist Pan-Iranists who like to deny anything Turkic at all.
Mughals were a Turkic dynasty, the founder was Turkic and as nationhood is passed paternally in there society it remained so as they only married foreign woman however, no woman of the family married a foreign male.
Taking a Persian wife doesn't make them a Persian, it makes the wife a Turk according to their society. The Ottomans took foreign wifes but no Ottoman royal family woman member could marry a non-Ottoman Turk. This doesn't make the Ottomans non-Turkic, its called pollitical marriages, these occured across the world. Its ridiculous that some extremists here are trying to claim that the Mughals are somehow Persian because some of them took Persian woman.
Mughals were never Mongol, this is a misnomer, it has no basis in reality. Babur never called himself a Mongol or showed any ties to them. He and Timur saw themselves as Turks, if they percieved and highlighted this point than we have no other option but to accept this.
Mughals never claimed to be descendants of Ghenghiz Khan, this is a total fabrication and attempt to try and deny their Turkic origin by some extremists here.
Its no good trying to tell people who are dead what they are, its ridiculous and this kind of shambolic nonsense has no room in an encyclopedia.
The Safavids were Turkic, drew most their support from Turkic tribes, spoke Turkish and wrote entire literary works in the Turkish language. The whole theory that they were Persian is yet more Pan-Iranic nonsense which only Iranian sources claim.
-- Johnstevens5 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I just don't understand what's wrong with having both maps. That way everyone's happy...right? — Khoi khoi 00:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If one of the editors has prepared that map, that is pure original research, it can be removed immediately per Wiki policies WP:OR.. It concerns a contested topic, not like the picture of a street in a city, or the picture of a map, therefore editors don't have a right to publish their own materials in Wiki as they constitute their own theses in a contested topic.. The other map is sourced from a non-Turkish German academic research, therefore it carries thousand times more weight than that map, which, in the eyes of Wiki policies, has no weight at all.. Pls see [ [20]]. Baristarim 00:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The official language of Ottomans was Turkish, it was not Persian, please stop posting incorrect information.
The whirling dervishes do not come out of Persian influences, against mis-leading incorrect information. Turkic communities practised this prior to Islam, Berber tribes have the same traditions so do Arabs. You talk about Rumi, well Rumi lived in the capitol of the Seljuk Turks and his family today are Turks. Rumi is popular, as is Yunus Emre, Ahmed Yesevi, Haji Bektashi etc etc
The Ottoman sultan's knew many languages, they did not as you put it write all their poetry in Persian, most Ottoman Sultan poems are in their native Turkish. There are also poems in Arabic, Persian, Albanian and so on, stop thinking it's something you can use to push this chauvanist behaviour.
The Turkic rulers in Iran and who created the concept of "Iran" as we know it today wrote many poems in Turkish and infact were responsible for bringing waves of Turkic migrations, influence and culture into Iran.
Should we now go to "Iranian peoples" section and post that they are nothing but a combinations of Arabic and Turkic culture. Being heavily Arabified and their language re-constructed and then being under Trukic influence for a thousand years.
We can get a clearer picture by looking at it from this perspective. Over 1000 years ago the only Turks West of the Caspian Sea were in the armies of the Abbasids and prior the Byzantines. Today, West of the Caspian Sea is home to some 120 million Turkish speakers. If you want we can go into details of Turkic influence in the area, the population transformation speaks for itself, wouldn't you agree.
The culture of the Ottoman state was Turkic, it was fused by the surrounding cultures in the melting pot. There are many influences, also there are Turkic influences on surrounding cultures. The architecture of the Ottomans has Turkic, Arabic, Iranian, Byzantine influences and so do other cultural aspects, these were mixed, fused and changed.
This is natural to practically all nations in the area, none is pure.
-- Johnstevens5 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Baristarim says that my map is origional research and insists on using an exaggerated map. Well, I did some research and discovered something. The creator of this map: [28] is himself a Wikipedia User! Baristarim claims that my map cannot be used because it is made by a user. Well then, interestingly, the map he wants to use is also created by a Wikipedia user (his Turkish Wikipedia User page: [29])! Also something interesting is the fact that on his own user page he claims that his Turkish knowledge is limited! So Baristarim, the map you have on the article currently is also unacceptable by your logic, so that should be taken out. Secondly, my map is the only one with cited sources, so which will it be?
There is one solution, how about we put no maps in this article period. Khosrow II 04:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
How about no map at all, that way we can all be satisfied. Khosrow II 04:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The person who reverted the article and put in Khosrow in the edit summary was not me. I dont want anyone getting any ideas. You cna check my IP address if you dont believe me. Khosrow II 04:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
Anon user who reverted the numbers, stop! I added up the total number of all the Turkic peoples listed in this article, which are all sourced! Do not revert again. This article has also mentioned the 150 million number for months. Do not vandalize the page again with POV numbers. Khosrow II 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Khosrow, you can't add-up the numbers by yourself, that would be original research. I'm sure there are sources out there that state the number of Turkic peoples, so just provide them. We can give a range or something like that with Zap's source. Khoi khoi 19:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Zaparojdik, please see
Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position:
“ | Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. | ” |
What we need is a source that says, "the total number of Turkic peoples is..." We can't collect the numbers of various Turkic peoples from Wikipedia articles—because that would violate WP:NOR (synthesis of published material serving to advance a position). Do you see what I'm saying? Khoi khoi 05:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
not at all, if the figure was 100 million, I would also refute it, because the number is 120 to 150 million, as the article itself has been saying for months. What researched figures are you talking about? Because the only sourced numbers presented were mine! Khosrow II 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There were Turkic migrations, there were not only armies. There are clear and documented migrations of at least 24 Oghuz tribes, these included all segments of society. Later during the Mongol invasion there were more migrations. During the Timurid more. During the Russian-Tatar wars more migrations and so on.
Claming that there were no big Turkic migrations is totally incorrect.
Also many people joined the Turks and could become Turks, it was not based upon Race and being a Turk never has been so bringing the "race" debate has no use what-so-ever. Its a cultural-linguistic bond which creates the identity as it is with all nations.
This debunks the entire arguments regarding "looks", Ghenghiz Khan is thought to have had a red beard by some, there are blonde people and mixed Mongoloid-Caucosoid peoples, Turkic people's look Caucosoid to Mongoloids like Koreans and Mongoloid to European Caucosoid.
You can't just categorise people into Archaic race groups.
These "race" group categories are rejected by modern scholors today and have no significance in determining people.
The Oghuz Turk population/speakers alone is around 120 million. So how can the entire Turkic population be 120 million.
You gave about five sources for the figures in Iran, why did you miss out Ethnologue?
Iran
Azerbaijani, South [azb] 23,500,000 in Iran (1997). Population includes 290,000 Afshar, 5,000 Aynallu, 7,500 Baharlu, 1,000 Moqaddam, 3,500 Nafar 1,000 Pishagchi, 3,000 Qajar, 2,000 Qaragozlu, 130,000 Shahsavani (1993). Population total all countries: 24,364,000.
Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani
Khorasani Turkish [kmz] 400,000 (1977 Doerfer).
Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish
Qashqa'i [qxq] 1,500,000 (1997).
Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani
Turkmen [tuk] 2,000,000 in Iran (1997).
Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkmenian
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Iran
27 and a half million in Iran.
-- Johnstevens5 00:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
How about if I presented a load of sources stating that Azeri Turks population is 50 million world-wide. Would it make it any more acceptable.
Ethnologue, is an objective site, it's the most reliable source we have unless you can think of another.
The Oghuz Turkic speakers alone have a population of around 110 million (including as second language)
Turkey Turk - 70 million Azeri Turk - 24-33 million Turkmen - 7 million (Including Iran, Afganistan) Qashqai 2 million Turks in Bulgaria - 1 million (including those who fled during the troubled years in the 80's) Turks of Western Thrace - 120,000 Meshketian Turks - 300,000 Gagauz of Moldova - 250,000 Turkish Cypriots - estimated 447,000 (worldwide) Macedonia - 100,000 Iraqi Turkmen - 220,000 - 2 million Crimean Tatar - 500,000 - 2 million (heavily influenced by Oghuz dialect but originally it would have been closer to Kipchak dialect) Khorasani Turkish - 400,000 Turks in Germany - over 2.1 million
Also if you add the, 400,000 in Holland and France, 300,000 in Belgium, 250,000 in Austria, America and so on.
This figure is not exaggerated.
Now unless your suggesting that the entire Kipchak and Chaghtai Turki dialect speakers have a total populaton of around 20-30 million, your figure is totally incorrect.
Ozbeks 22-28 million Uygur language 10 million estimate
Kazak - 12 million Bashkir - 1 million Tatar - 5 million Kyrgyz - 3 million Chuvash - 1 million Sakha - 350,000 Tuvan 200,000
etc etc
All that's needed is basic calculation skills to work out that there is more than 120-150 million, its closer to 160-180 million if all the speakers are included.
-- Johnstevens5 03:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Who is you guys? its not what I'm saying, what you or I personally think does not matter, this isn't a subjective blogger's paradise, it's meant to be an objective Encyclopedia. You have already highlighted your stance, your not hear to be objective and work together to provide accurate un-biased results. Your referring to people as "others", "them", like this is some extreme nationalist battle-ground and your fighting some imaginary paranoid battle.
I said clearly there are 70 million Turkish speakers in Turkey, alot of Kurdish people are today Turkish, speak Turkish as their mother tongue and have such an identity.
How can the low estimate be 120 million? the Oghuz Turk population itself is 110 million, are you trying to suggest that the rest of the Turkic population equates to just 10 million?
Let's carry out some basic maths...
The Oghuz Turkic speakers alone have a population of around 110 million (including as second language)
Turkey Turk - 70 million (including Kurds which according to Wiki are between 7-20%)
Azeri Turk - 24-33 million
Turkmen - 7 million (Including Iran, Afganistan)
Qashqai 2 million
Turks in Bulgaria - 1 million (including those who fled during the troubled years in the 80's)
Turks of Western Thrace - 120,000
Meshketian Turks - 300,000
Gagauz of Moldova - 250,000
Turkish Cypriots - estimated 447,000 (worldwide)
Macedonia - 100,000
Iraqi Turkmen - 220,000 - 2 million
Crimean Tatar - 500,000 - 2 million (heavily influenced by Oghuz dialect but originally it would have been closer to Kipchak dialect)
Khorasani Turkish - 400,000
Turks in Germany - over 2.1 million
Turks in Holland - 400,000
Turks in Belgium - 300,000
Turks in Austria - 200,000
Turks in France - 400,000
Turkish American - 110,000
This is just the Oghuz Turkic speakers.
Let's calculate...
Minumum population - 109-110 million
Maximum population - 122 million, now even if we take out 7-20% of Turkey's population its 117-110 million.
Now that is only the Oghuz Turkic population.
To proove your figure incorrect, now let's calculate the rest.
Ozbeks 22-28 million
Uygur language 10 million estimate
Kazak - 12 million Bashkir - 1 million Tatar - 10-20 million Kyrgyz - 3 million Chuvash - 1 million Sakha - 350,000 Tuvan - 200,000 Karachay - 240,000 Kumyk language 282,000 Altay - 70,000
Let's calculate this...
Minumum - 60 million Maximum - 76 million
Now let's calculate the two.
Minumum speakers - 170 million Maximum speakers - 198 million
If we exclude the Turkic speaking Kurds - 183-193 million.
All it take's is to add up the figure's, its not rocket science, there is no need for an argument over this, the calculations are clear.
-- Johnstevens5 21:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I Agree with Johnstevens5. Such an estimate will work. Tengriteg
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)
I will, even though you're yet another sockpuppet (duh). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Johnstevens5,
Keep in mind that many "mainstream modern scholars" fall into the common trap of believing that racial segregation, racial bigotry, and violence targeting particular ethnic groups are precipitated by the mere study of ethnicity. In doing so, they confuse "ethnicity" and "race".
"Race" and "ethnicity" are two distinct concepts. The former has become synonymous with not only observations of physical characteristics dominant among a society or group (something entirely benign), but with the designation of a prejudged set of customs, habits, ideas, etc. that are to be associated with all members of that society or group. Preconceived and all-encompassing notions of "race" - as it is well documented - have been used to justify a litany of unspeakable crimes perpetrated by both individuals and regimes since time immemorial. Observation of the targeted race not as individuals, but as part of a homogeneous racial collective, has lead to many of the world's instances of genocide - most notoriously in the past two centuries.
Such concepts also serve as a basis by well-meaning, but misguided individuals today in order to grant special privilege to members of a "race" against whom past injustice (real or perceived) has occurred. Although certainly not on the level of genocide, such practice is rooted in the same tired assumption: a prejudged set of ideas, habits perspectives, life experiences, customs, etc. is attached to each member of the group. Such practice, despite its noble intent, is no less racist than violent segregation.
The study of ethnicity - the origins, intermixing, migrations, etc. of diverse groups of people over human history, and how such events led to the diversity of peoples we see today - as well as ethnology - the study of the relationship between the world's thousands of languages and the thousands of ethnic groups that speak them - are perfectly acceptable as academic disciplines. No malevolent byproduct oozes from academic inquiry that seeks to answers questions in the vein of "Why is it that some Kazakhs appear similar to some Kyrgyz, while most Kazakhs look nothing like most Han Chinese?" or "Why is it that the Finnish language possesses many of the grammatical characteristics of Japanese?".
Culture, norms, mores, customs - all can be viewed as pervasive among certain ethnic groups. The line is crossed only when one fails to acknowledge that this is not set in stone, and that the culture, norms, mores, customs, etc. are not the result of ethnicity. One need look no further than a household in which the parents adopt a child from a foreign country to see the fallacy in believing otherwise.
I fully agree with you regarding the article's failure to acknowledge migrations, as well as the absurdity of its "anti-Anatolian" tone. My friend Taylan - born and raised near Inçirlik, Turkey - once responded to a question about the Oghuz by happily proclaiming, "Their migration, and the migrations that followed, led to Turks like me living where we do today." All credible historical evidence backs his claim. Western Turks have every right to claim a common cultural and ethnic heritage with the Turkic peoples of the East.
~BPDugan
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:
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) Momoboy 11-18-06
Please swap the {{ ethnic group}} template for the {{ Turkic ethnicity}} template. ( → Netscott) 21:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Not done since the page is already unprotected. -- WinHunter ( talk) 14:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
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. Khoi khoi 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
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:
The Columbia Encyclopedia states:
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:
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)
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)
See my explanation at #The infobox. Khoi khoi 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ottomans were Turkic so Turkey is a decendant of Ottomans so they are Turkic and Turkish?( cantikadam 12:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC))
Response: Good question. The Turks of Turkey or both Turkic and Turkish. Turkic means the those peoples who speak languages that are part of the Turkic family of languages. Turkish is the term for people associated with Turkey.
Momoboy 17:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Momoboy 11-18-06
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)
to make the map i put up there, i used many different maps including the one Zaparojdik wants to put it. do not take my map out again unless you have good reason because i used the map you want when i made my map, including other more reliable maps. Khosrow II 16:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Perharps Azerbaijani will be useful to understand me. The reason is its not shows right! so I'll remove it always and I very laughed when i see Iranian Azerbaijan :) Zaparojdik 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Zaparojdik 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The map is great and I appreciate all the effort people are putting in, but it is Original Research. The Wikipedia is rule is No Originial Research - see, if I can get it to work - WP:NOR. You have to find a map that someone else has published on the web or in a book that is fair use. Lao Wai 08:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The article claims that these 2 dynasties were Turkic. This contradicts the information given in these articles. Tājik 03:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Mughals and Timurids were Turkic, unfortunately we have some extremist Pan-Iranists who like to deny anything Turkic at all.
Mughals were never Mongol, this is a misnomer, it has no basis in reality. Babur never called himself a Mongol or showed any ties to them. He and Timur saw themselves as Turks, if they percieved and highlighted this point than we have no other option but to accept this.
Its no good trying to tell people who are dead what they are, its ridiculous and this kind of shambolic nonsense has no room in an encyclopedia.
As I know they speak Turkish offically...
Where did you get this idea from? Lots of "ethnic Turks" live there. Same thing applies to north-east, too. Haydarhan
So it is like a France born Zulu's mother language is Afrikaan? ( cantikadam 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
That section is irrelevant and way POV. For example, it says that the monarchs were Turkic, thats not true. They were of mixed Turkic, Mongolic, and Iranic origin for the most part. Secondly, it says that because pakistani's claim descent that they are descendents of the Mughals, that there is genetic relationship between them and Turkic peoples. If that isnt one of the stupidest thigns I have ever read, then I dont know what is. Where is the source for this? Some crazy Pan Turk website? Khosrow II 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Infact we went further to proove him wrong and took Babur's actual words to him.
Andijanis are all Turks; everyone in town or bazar knows Turki. The speech of the people resembles the literary language; hence the writings of Mir 'Ali-sher Nawa'i, though he was bred and grew up in Hin (Herat), are one with their dialect. Good looks are common amongst them. The famous musician, Khwaja Yusuf, was an Andijani.
THESE ARE HIS ACTUAL WORDS! He wrote them, if he was a Mongol he would have wrote that he and his town and descendants were Mongols but he doesn't so it doesn't matter what a cetain member says, what matters is what Babur himself writes.
Mughals and Timurids were Turkic, unfortunately we have some extremist Pan-Iranists who like to deny anything Turkic at all.
Mughals were a Turkic dynasty, the founder was Turkic and as nationhood is passed paternally in there society it remained so as they only married foreign woman however, no woman of the family married a foreign male.
Taking a Persian wife doesn't make them a Persian, it makes the wife a Turk according to their society. The Ottomans took foreign wifes but no Ottoman royal family woman member could marry a non-Ottoman Turk. This doesn't make the Ottomans non-Turkic, its called pollitical marriages, these occured across the world. Its ridiculous that some extremists here are trying to claim that the Mughals are somehow Persian because some of them took Persian woman.
Mughals were never Mongol, this is a misnomer, it has no basis in reality. Babur never called himself a Mongol or showed any ties to them. He and Timur saw themselves as Turks, if they percieved and highlighted this point than we have no other option but to accept this.
Mughals never claimed to be descendants of Ghenghiz Khan, this is a total fabrication and attempt to try and deny their Turkic origin by some extremists here.
Its no good trying to tell people who are dead what they are, its ridiculous and this kind of shambolic nonsense has no room in an encyclopedia.
The Safavids were Turkic, drew most their support from Turkic tribes, spoke Turkish and wrote entire literary works in the Turkish language. The whole theory that they were Persian is yet more Pan-Iranic nonsense which only Iranian sources claim.
-- Johnstevens5 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I just don't understand what's wrong with having both maps. That way everyone's happy...right? — Khoi khoi 00:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If one of the editors has prepared that map, that is pure original research, it can be removed immediately per Wiki policies WP:OR.. It concerns a contested topic, not like the picture of a street in a city, or the picture of a map, therefore editors don't have a right to publish their own materials in Wiki as they constitute their own theses in a contested topic.. The other map is sourced from a non-Turkish German academic research, therefore it carries thousand times more weight than that map, which, in the eyes of Wiki policies, has no weight at all.. Pls see [ [20]]. Baristarim 00:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The official language of Ottomans was Turkish, it was not Persian, please stop posting incorrect information.
The whirling dervishes do not come out of Persian influences, against mis-leading incorrect information. Turkic communities practised this prior to Islam, Berber tribes have the same traditions so do Arabs. You talk about Rumi, well Rumi lived in the capitol of the Seljuk Turks and his family today are Turks. Rumi is popular, as is Yunus Emre, Ahmed Yesevi, Haji Bektashi etc etc
The Ottoman sultan's knew many languages, they did not as you put it write all their poetry in Persian, most Ottoman Sultan poems are in their native Turkish. There are also poems in Arabic, Persian, Albanian and so on, stop thinking it's something you can use to push this chauvanist behaviour.
The Turkic rulers in Iran and who created the concept of "Iran" as we know it today wrote many poems in Turkish and infact were responsible for bringing waves of Turkic migrations, influence and culture into Iran.
Should we now go to "Iranian peoples" section and post that they are nothing but a combinations of Arabic and Turkic culture. Being heavily Arabified and their language re-constructed and then being under Trukic influence for a thousand years.
We can get a clearer picture by looking at it from this perspective. Over 1000 years ago the only Turks West of the Caspian Sea were in the armies of the Abbasids and prior the Byzantines. Today, West of the Caspian Sea is home to some 120 million Turkish speakers. If you want we can go into details of Turkic influence in the area, the population transformation speaks for itself, wouldn't you agree.
The culture of the Ottoman state was Turkic, it was fused by the surrounding cultures in the melting pot. There are many influences, also there are Turkic influences on surrounding cultures. The architecture of the Ottomans has Turkic, Arabic, Iranian, Byzantine influences and so do other cultural aspects, these were mixed, fused and changed.
This is natural to practically all nations in the area, none is pure.
-- Johnstevens5 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Baristarim says that my map is origional research and insists on using an exaggerated map. Well, I did some research and discovered something. The creator of this map: [28] is himself a Wikipedia User! Baristarim claims that my map cannot be used because it is made by a user. Well then, interestingly, the map he wants to use is also created by a Wikipedia user (his Turkish Wikipedia User page: [29])! Also something interesting is the fact that on his own user page he claims that his Turkish knowledge is limited! So Baristarim, the map you have on the article currently is also unacceptable by your logic, so that should be taken out. Secondly, my map is the only one with cited sources, so which will it be?
There is one solution, how about we put no maps in this article period. Khosrow II 04:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
How about no map at all, that way we can all be satisfied. Khosrow II 04:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The person who reverted the article and put in Khosrow in the edit summary was not me. I dont want anyone getting any ideas. You cna check my IP address if you dont believe me. Khosrow II 04:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
Anon user who reverted the numbers, stop! I added up the total number of all the Turkic peoples listed in this article, which are all sourced! Do not revert again. This article has also mentioned the 150 million number for months. Do not vandalize the page again with POV numbers. Khosrow II 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Khosrow, you can't add-up the numbers by yourself, that would be original research. I'm sure there are sources out there that state the number of Turkic peoples, so just provide them. We can give a range or something like that with Zap's source. Khoi khoi 19:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Zaparojdik, please see
Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position:
“ | Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. | ” |
What we need is a source that says, "the total number of Turkic peoples is..." We can't collect the numbers of various Turkic peoples from Wikipedia articles—because that would violate WP:NOR (synthesis of published material serving to advance a position). Do you see what I'm saying? Khoi khoi 05:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
not at all, if the figure was 100 million, I would also refute it, because the number is 120 to 150 million, as the article itself has been saying for months. What researched figures are you talking about? Because the only sourced numbers presented were mine! Khosrow II 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There were Turkic migrations, there were not only armies. There are clear and documented migrations of at least 24 Oghuz tribes, these included all segments of society. Later during the Mongol invasion there were more migrations. During the Timurid more. During the Russian-Tatar wars more migrations and so on.
Claming that there were no big Turkic migrations is totally incorrect.
Also many people joined the Turks and could become Turks, it was not based upon Race and being a Turk never has been so bringing the "race" debate has no use what-so-ever. Its a cultural-linguistic bond which creates the identity as it is with all nations.
This debunks the entire arguments regarding "looks", Ghenghiz Khan is thought to have had a red beard by some, there are blonde people and mixed Mongoloid-Caucosoid peoples, Turkic people's look Caucosoid to Mongoloids like Koreans and Mongoloid to European Caucosoid.
You can't just categorise people into Archaic race groups.
These "race" group categories are rejected by modern scholors today and have no significance in determining people.
The Oghuz Turk population/speakers alone is around 120 million. So how can the entire Turkic population be 120 million.
You gave about five sources for the figures in Iran, why did you miss out Ethnologue?
Iran
Azerbaijani, South [azb] 23,500,000 in Iran (1997). Population includes 290,000 Afshar, 5,000 Aynallu, 7,500 Baharlu, 1,000 Moqaddam, 3,500 Nafar 1,000 Pishagchi, 3,000 Qajar, 2,000 Qaragozlu, 130,000 Shahsavani (1993). Population total all countries: 24,364,000.
Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani
Khorasani Turkish [kmz] 400,000 (1977 Doerfer).
Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish
Qashqa'i [qxq] 1,500,000 (1997).
Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani
Turkmen [tuk] 2,000,000 in Iran (1997).
Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkmenian
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Iran
27 and a half million in Iran.
-- Johnstevens5 00:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
How about if I presented a load of sources stating that Azeri Turks population is 50 million world-wide. Would it make it any more acceptable.
Ethnologue, is an objective site, it's the most reliable source we have unless you can think of another.
The Oghuz Turkic speakers alone have a population of around 110 million (including as second language)
Turkey Turk - 70 million Azeri Turk - 24-33 million Turkmen - 7 million (Including Iran, Afganistan) Qashqai 2 million Turks in Bulgaria - 1 million (including those who fled during the troubled years in the 80's) Turks of Western Thrace - 120,000 Meshketian Turks - 300,000 Gagauz of Moldova - 250,000 Turkish Cypriots - estimated 447,000 (worldwide) Macedonia - 100,000 Iraqi Turkmen - 220,000 - 2 million Crimean Tatar - 500,000 - 2 million (heavily influenced by Oghuz dialect but originally it would have been closer to Kipchak dialect) Khorasani Turkish - 400,000 Turks in Germany - over 2.1 million
Also if you add the, 400,000 in Holland and France, 300,000 in Belgium, 250,000 in Austria, America and so on.
This figure is not exaggerated.
Now unless your suggesting that the entire Kipchak and Chaghtai Turki dialect speakers have a total populaton of around 20-30 million, your figure is totally incorrect.
Ozbeks 22-28 million Uygur language 10 million estimate
Kazak - 12 million Bashkir - 1 million Tatar - 5 million Kyrgyz - 3 million Chuvash - 1 million Sakha - 350,000 Tuvan 200,000
etc etc
All that's needed is basic calculation skills to work out that there is more than 120-150 million, its closer to 160-180 million if all the speakers are included.
-- Johnstevens5 03:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Who is you guys? its not what I'm saying, what you or I personally think does not matter, this isn't a subjective blogger's paradise, it's meant to be an objective Encyclopedia. You have already highlighted your stance, your not hear to be objective and work together to provide accurate un-biased results. Your referring to people as "others", "them", like this is some extreme nationalist battle-ground and your fighting some imaginary paranoid battle.
I said clearly there are 70 million Turkish speakers in Turkey, alot of Kurdish people are today Turkish, speak Turkish as their mother tongue and have such an identity.
How can the low estimate be 120 million? the Oghuz Turk population itself is 110 million, are you trying to suggest that the rest of the Turkic population equates to just 10 million?
Let's carry out some basic maths...
The Oghuz Turkic speakers alone have a population of around 110 million (including as second language)
Turkey Turk - 70 million (including Kurds which according to Wiki are between 7-20%)
Azeri Turk - 24-33 million
Turkmen - 7 million (Including Iran, Afganistan)
Qashqai 2 million
Turks in Bulgaria - 1 million (including those who fled during the troubled years in the 80's)
Turks of Western Thrace - 120,000
Meshketian Turks - 300,000
Gagauz of Moldova - 250,000
Turkish Cypriots - estimated 447,000 (worldwide)
Macedonia - 100,000
Iraqi Turkmen - 220,000 - 2 million
Crimean Tatar - 500,000 - 2 million (heavily influenced by Oghuz dialect but originally it would have been closer to Kipchak dialect)
Khorasani Turkish - 400,000
Turks in Germany - over 2.1 million
Turks in Holland - 400,000
Turks in Belgium - 300,000
Turks in Austria - 200,000
Turks in France - 400,000
Turkish American - 110,000
This is just the Oghuz Turkic speakers.
Let's calculate...
Minumum population - 109-110 million
Maximum population - 122 million, now even if we take out 7-20% of Turkey's population its 117-110 million.
Now that is only the Oghuz Turkic population.
To proove your figure incorrect, now let's calculate the rest.
Ozbeks 22-28 million
Uygur language 10 million estimate
Kazak - 12 million Bashkir - 1 million Tatar - 10-20 million Kyrgyz - 3 million Chuvash - 1 million Sakha - 350,000 Tuvan - 200,000 Karachay - 240,000 Kumyk language 282,000 Altay - 70,000
Let's calculate this...
Minumum - 60 million Maximum - 76 million
Now let's calculate the two.
Minumum speakers - 170 million Maximum speakers - 198 million
If we exclude the Turkic speaking Kurds - 183-193 million.
All it take's is to add up the figure's, its not rocket science, there is no need for an argument over this, the calculations are clear.
-- Johnstevens5 21:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I Agree with Johnstevens5. Such an estimate will work. Tengriteg
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)
I will, even though you're yet another sockpuppet (duh). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Johnstevens5,
Keep in mind that many "mainstream modern scholars" fall into the common trap of believing that racial segregation, racial bigotry, and violence targeting particular ethnic groups are precipitated by the mere study of ethnicity. In doing so, they confuse "ethnicity" and "race".
"Race" and "ethnicity" are two distinct concepts. The former has become synonymous with not only observations of physical characteristics dominant among a society or group (something entirely benign), but with the designation of a prejudged set of customs, habits, ideas, etc. that are to be associated with all members of that society or group. Preconceived and all-encompassing notions of "race" - as it is well documented - have been used to justify a litany of unspeakable crimes perpetrated by both individuals and regimes since time immemorial. Observation of the targeted race not as individuals, but as part of a homogeneous racial collective, has lead to many of the world's instances of genocide - most notoriously in the past two centuries.
Such concepts also serve as a basis by well-meaning, but misguided individuals today in order to grant special privilege to members of a "race" against whom past injustice (real or perceived) has occurred. Although certainly not on the level of genocide, such practice is rooted in the same tired assumption: a prejudged set of ideas, habits perspectives, life experiences, customs, etc. is attached to each member of the group. Such practice, despite its noble intent, is no less racist than violent segregation.
The study of ethnicity - the origins, intermixing, migrations, etc. of diverse groups of people over human history, and how such events led to the diversity of peoples we see today - as well as ethnology - the study of the relationship between the world's thousands of languages and the thousands of ethnic groups that speak them - are perfectly acceptable as academic disciplines. No malevolent byproduct oozes from academic inquiry that seeks to answers questions in the vein of "Why is it that some Kazakhs appear similar to some Kyrgyz, while most Kazakhs look nothing like most Han Chinese?" or "Why is it that the Finnish language possesses many of the grammatical characteristics of Japanese?".
Culture, norms, mores, customs - all can be viewed as pervasive among certain ethnic groups. The line is crossed only when one fails to acknowledge that this is not set in stone, and that the culture, norms, mores, customs, etc. are not the result of ethnicity. One need look no further than a household in which the parents adopt a child from a foreign country to see the fallacy in believing otherwise.
I fully agree with you regarding the article's failure to acknowledge migrations, as well as the absurdity of its "anti-Anatolian" tone. My friend Taylan - born and raised near Inçirlik, Turkey - once responded to a question about the Oghuz by happily proclaiming, "Their migration, and the migrations that followed, led to Turks like me living where we do today." All credible historical evidence backs his claim. Western Turks have every right to claim a common cultural and ethnic heritage with the Turkic peoples of the East.
~BPDugan
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:
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) Momoboy 11-18-06
Please swap the {{ ethnic group}} template for the {{ Turkic ethnicity}} template. ( → Netscott) 21:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Not done since the page is already unprotected. -- WinHunter ( talk) 14:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
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. Khoi khoi 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
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:
The Columbia Encyclopedia states:
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:
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)
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)
See my explanation at #The infobox. Khoi khoi 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)