This level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects.

ChinaHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofChina related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. TurkeyLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofTurkey andrelated topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. Central AsiaHigh‑importance Göktürks is part ofWikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve allCentral Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited toAfghanistan,Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan,Mongolia,Tajikistan,Tibet,Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan,Xinjiang and Central Asian portions ofIran,Pakistan andRussia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, pleasejoin the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, pleasejoin the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope ofWikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to bedefunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia MongolsMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. Ethnic groupsHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating toethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some openWikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the{{Ethnic groups}} templateon the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free toedit this list ordiscuss these tasks.

On 19 April 2023, it was proposed that this article bemoved toTürks. The result ofthe discussion wasnot moved.

This article contains a reference to the Silk Road Foundation. It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org

This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but shouldNOT be confused withSilk Road Journal Online, which has nothing to do with this talk page section.

The Silk Road Journal in question is focuses on Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by mostly Russian and Chinese researchers. There is only one editor of the journal, an American man named Daniel Waugh, who has candidly stated that the journal has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset,there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer.I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

This is pretty much the definition of a predatory publisher.

And predictably, this source contains the kind of erroneous information that one would expect from these kinds of standards. I would just like to note that this source does not even say that this mask is of Göktürk origin or from the Türkic empire. Quite the opposite, it quotes a researcher who says that it is found in association with items (namely, a cup)obtained by trade with the Türkic empire:

The crescent-shaped garnets which depict the beard of

the mask are similar to those of the studs (Inv. Nos. 2001.21.52–53); however the mount of the Boma mask is of much better quality and workmanship, with the cells of the single crescent stones surrounded by an accurate granulation. The “Western” characteristics of the cup with panther handle and of the other fi nds from Boma, have been discussed in detail by Lin Ying (2008). She interpreted them as objects produced in the Turkic Empire of Central Asia and adds that these populations “transmitted material and cultural achievements between East and West, but also combined in their own distinct culture the elements of different civilisations” such as the Byzantine, Iranian,

Indian and Chinese (Ying 2008, p. 25).

Yet, as we would expect from a low quality source, this is unlikely, because this source also got the dating of the mask awfully wrong. This mask is not from the 5th-6th centuries CE. Every source I have seen places the dates of the golden masks to within the 1-5th centuries CE. FromThe Himalayan gold masks from a Eurasian perspective, Tao Tong and Linhui Li (2016):

The dates of these gold masks are all around the 1st–2nd centuries CE

On the ruby-inlade Poma mask that this section concerns:

one made of gold from a tomb at Poma (1st–5th century CE

Thus this mask actually pre-dates the First Türkic Khaganate, possibly by hundreds of years, so whatever the Silk Road Journal meant by "Turkic empire", this mask has nothing to do with Göktürks, and since no source actually claims it is a Gökturk, much less aGöktürk ruler, it should not be placed here. -Hunan201p (talk)00:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am 38 years old Finnish researcher on Turkish history specifically on ancient Turkish roots. I have learned to read Orkun scripts from books of Mehmet Kömen, Turgay Tüfekçioğlu, Kazım Mirşan and ofcourse from my study at Istanbul University. since I already knew Turkish from my education at Istanbul University learning to recognise modern meaning of the tamgas in Orkun was easier for me. To get to the point; The name of "Göktürk" is wrong and its real name also is not "Kök" either. The real name is "Ökük Türük" meaning: "Ök"= Creator/Heavenly Sky, "Ük" Creator/holy. For "Türük" we dont even have to go back that far because in nowadays Turkish both words are still being used. "Tür" means "Race" (nowadays Turkish still same word) and "Ük" as again means "Holy/Creator". So if you put this all together you get "Ökük Türük". Meaning the "Holy Race (which is descent) of the Heavenly Sky/Creator". The misreading is "Gök" from "Kök", yes. But "Kök" itself is also a misreading. Because in the Orkun inscription its says [𐰜𐰇𐰚 : 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜] from right to left [𐰜] means "Ök", [𐰇] means "Ü" and [𐰚] means "K". So its not possible for it to start with a "K" and to end with a "Ök". This is a false reading done by the famous Turkish historian "Talat Tekin". However if we look at his Orkun translations of the word "Ötüken" [𐰇𐱅𐰜𐰤:𐰖𐰃𐱁] we can see from right to left he tranated the [𐰜] as "ÜK". While in his translation of "Köktürk" he translates this as just "K"? There are a total of 28+ translations of Talat Tekin where he translates this as "ÜK" to a counter of only 3 translations with this false "K". To get things straight there are 2 K's in old Turkish. [𐰜]=ÖK/ÜK, [𐰚]=k. So I want to suggest we should change the name of the page from the false misreading of a misreading "Göktürk" to its original name like in the Orkun texts "Ökük Türük".HiddenRealHistory19 (talk)03:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make an interesting point, however I would like to point out that the readings of many Turkic letters are generally pretty inconsistent and the letter 𐰜 can mean not just ök and ük, but also kö, kü, and k.2601:47:0:FBF0:E155:A4BE:9097:D1C6 (talk)04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's not true, it would only mean ÖK or ÜK. If it would also mean K then there's 2 letters written differently but with the same sound. I Have the whole Evolution from Tamga to letter of the "ÖK" tamga. ÖK meant creator. Even today we can see traces of this, in Turkish to people who have no mother we call them "Öksüz' meaning "without ök" without a creator. I you want you should message me from instagram @elturcos27 I can prove everything to you. The only correct way to read Orkun is through the translations of Kazım Mirşan.HiddenRealHistory19 (talk)07:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to add one more thing, "kök türk" has no meaning. That just means "roots turk??" Ökük however is also very similar if not exactly the same meaning as the etymology of "Turk". "TÜR ÜK"HiddenRealHistory19 (talk)07:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kök means sky, the word kök later involved to gök~2025-31411-56 (talk)09:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Genetics" section of this article may require regular monitoring due to frequent speculative or unsourced additions regarding the Y-DNA composition of the Göktürks. This topic has been subject to repeated misrepresentation (for example, the false claim about “four elite Türk soldiers” with 50% R1 and 50% Q/O allegedly from Damgaard et al., 2018).(seethis version)

To maintain verifiability and neutrality (perWP:RS andWP:UNDUE), I suggest that only data explicitly published in peer-reviewed archaeogenetic studies be included. The most relevant verified sources are:

• Jeong et al. 2020,PNAS, Supplementary Table S5
• Jeong et al. 2023,Science, Supplementary Data S6
• Damgaard et al. 2018,Nature, Extended Data Table 3

Below is a summary table of all currently published **Turkic-period elite burials** from the core area of the Turkic Khaganate (Central and Eastern Mongolia), as presented in these studies:

These represent all currently published Turkic-period elite male burials from Mongolia, and can serve as a verified foundation for the Genetics section. Any future additions should cite newly peer-reviewed genetic studies to maintain reliability.Gocturk (talk)02:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i already talk to him on his talk page. He changed the information and use sample from other cultures for gok Turks he also change the subclade of original Turkic samples10gokk10 (talk)20:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@10gokk10 And whatreliable sources are you citing for your changes? —C.Fred (talk)20:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

source are reliable. But samples are belong to different cultures for example TUK001 is xiongnu period, KHN001 is mongol, OLN008 is female from Uyghur period (females don't have y dna).OLN001 is male from Uyghur period. TUK001 is female, TUK002 is xiongnu and haplogroup O-F26105,UAA001 is Mönkhkhairkhan and is haplo N10gokk10 (talk)20:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there has been a mix-up regarding the THK001 and TKH001 samples. These are not different individuals, and the data you referred to were not incorrect — the confusion comes from different lab codes used by two research teams for the same burial at the Takhiltyn Khotgor site in eastern Mongolia.

Clarification from the original publicationsGocturk (talk)20:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The removal was based on a misunderstanding — other editors confused the archaeological sample designations THK001 and TKH001. These are not different individuals, and there was no mistake in the original entry. The two labels refer to the same burial from the Takhiltyn Khotgor site in eastern Mongolia, but were catalogued under different lab codes in separate studies.

Clarification from primary sources:

In Damgaard et al., Nature (2018), the sample from Takhiltyn Khotgor was labeled THK001.

In Jeong et al., Science / bioRxiv (2020), the same site was reanalyzed and relabeled as TKH001 (Takhiltyn Khotgor 1).

Both refer to the same male individual dated to ca. 250–383 CE, associated with the post-Xiongnu (Xianbei–Rouran) cultural horizon.

The difference in code simply reflects the independent laboratory naming systems (Copenhagen vs. Jena).Gocturk (talk)20:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every sample I said can seen in papers. Also you can check sites like ftdna(which has good datebae of ADNA) or search it in "theytree" if you can't look at paper.10gokk10 (talk)20:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you can't make thing from yourself.10gokk10 (talk)20:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there has been a mix-up regarding the THK001 and TKH001 samples. These are not different individuals, and the data you referred to were not incorrect — the confusion comes from different lab codes used by two research teams for the same burial at the Takhiltyn Khotgor site in eastern Mongolia.

Clarification from the original publications:

In Damgaard et al., Nature (2018), the sample was labeled THK001 (Copenhagen laboratory).

In Jeong et al., Science / bioRxiv (2020), the same burial was reanalyzed and labeled TKH001 (Takhiltyn Khotgor 1) (Jena laboratory).Gocturk (talk)20:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but youre just give wrong information you change zaa004 and zaa002 Wich are c-SK1082 to c-f191810gokk10 (talk)21:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will report any vandalism or deliberate damage to Wikipedia without prior discussionGocturk (talk)21:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just give me one source that say zaa004 and zaa002 are f191810gokk10 (talk)21:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both ZAA002 and ZAA004 are reported in Jeong et al., 2020 — A dynamic 6,000-year genetic history of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe (Science / bioRxiv preprint).

In the Supplementary Table S6, both samples are listed under the Türkic period (552–742 CE), and their Y-chromosome haplogroups are given as C2b1a1b1 (C-F1918) for ZAA002 and C-F1756 for ZAA004.

So:

ZAA002 → C-F1918 (early Türkic period)

ZAA004 → C-F1756 (late Türkic period)

These are directly from Jeong et al. 2020, Supplementary Table S6, verified peer-reviewed data.Gocturk (talk)21:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

since most of people do look in paper. I just give you link (I know it's not good source I just put it here just because others see it and go look in paper)https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/C-SK1082/ancient.

https://www.theytree.com/tree/C-SK1082

See both of them are

SK108210gokk10 (talk)21:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those websites (FamilyTreeDNA Discover and TheyTree) are not primary sources — they are community databases that automatically assign subclades based on publicly available BAM files, and sometimes they use different naming conventions.

However, the only authoritative and citable source for ZAA002 and ZAA004 is the peer-reviewed paper Jeong et al. 2020 – “A dynamic 6,000-year genetic history of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe” (Science).

In the Supplementary Table S6 of that study, the haplogroups are clearly listed as:

ZAA002 → C2b1a1b1 (C-F1918)

ZAA004 → C-F1756Gocturk (talk)21:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again you give wrong information

https://uploadkon.ir/uploads/7ab710_25Screenshot-۲۰۲۵-۱۰-۱۱-۰۰-۵۱-۲۱-۷۸۶-cn-wps-moffice-eng.jpg. Take from Supplementary Tab10gokk10 (talk)21:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you okay. I can give you pic of all wrong information you wrote10gokk10 (talk)21:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the original supplementary file carefully, not screenshots from third-party uploads.

Your link is not an official source — it’s a personal upload, and that’s not acceptable for verification.

In Jeong et al., 2020 (Science, “A dynamic 6,000-year genetic history of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe”), both ZAA002 and ZAA004 are explicitly listed under the Türkic period (552–742 CE).Gocturk (talk)21:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them are turks. But they are not ZAA002 → C2b1a1b1 (C-F1918) as you said. It's taken by me you know most people don't look at Supplementary Table, because of this you wrote wrong information. ZAA002 → C2b1a1b1 (C-F1918) this is what you exacly wrote10gokk10 (talk)21:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding.

I did not say anything that contradicts what is written in Jeong et al., 2020.

The Supplementary Table S6 of that paper clearly lists:

ZAA002 → C2b1a1b1 (C-F1918)

ZAA004 → C-F1756Gocturk (talk)21:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I give the Supplementary links. If you have link put it here10gokk10 (talk)21:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took from original source by myself as I said "(I know it's not good source I just put it here just because others see it and go look in paper)"10gokk10 (talk)21:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

just know most people don't look at Supplementary10gokk10 (talk)21:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary Table S6 (Jeong et al. 2020)

Sample ID

Site (Province)

Period / Culture

Cal Date (CE)

Y-DNA Haplogroup

mtDNA

Notes / Context

TKH001

Takhiltyn Khotgor (Arkhangai)

Early Türkic Khaganate

ca. 550–600 CE

C2b1a1b1 (C-F1918)

D4b1a2a

Elite male burial with horse sacrifice and gold ornaments

TKH002

Takhiltyn Khotgor (Arkhangai)

Early Türkic Khaganate

ca. 550–600 CE

C2b (basal)

D4b1a2a

Secondary male burial in same kurgan complex

ZAA002

Zaan-Khoshuu (Bulgan)

Türkic period (552–742 CE)

ca. 550–600 CE

C2b1a1b1 (C-F1918)

D4b1a2a

Imperial elite kurgan with weaponry and belt ornaments

ZAA004

Zaan-Khoshuu (Bulgan)

Türkic period (588–770 CE)

ca. 650–700 CE

C-F1756

D4b1a2a

Elite Türkic burial with gold harness fittingsGocturk (talk)21:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Give me link10gokk10 (talk)21:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't made up things from yourself10gokk10 (talk)21:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I give a link that every can look. Give like that10gokk10 (talk)21:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A dynamic 6,000-year genetic history of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe

(Cell, Volume 183, Issue 4, 2020, Pages 890–904.e29)

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.015Gocturk (talk)21:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in your link there is only 5 Supplemental Information. Supplemental Information 6 is "Document S1. Article Translation in Mongolian: Евразийн Зүүн тал нутаг дахь 6000 жилийн динамик генетик түүх (Translation by Zoljargal Enkh-Amgalan, Enkhee Purev, Erdene Myagmar, Turbat Tsaagan, and Björn Reichhardt"10gokk10 (talk)22:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what is written in Jeong et al., 2020

"Türk (550-750 CE). Göktürkic tribes of the Altai Mountains established a political structure across Eurasia beginning in 552 CE, with an empire that ruled over Mongolia from 581-742 CE (Golden, 1992). A brief period of disunion occurred between 659-682 CE, during which the Chinese Tang dynasty laid claim over Mongolia. One individual from this study (TUM001) was a sacrificial person within the ramp of a Chinese-style tomb in central Mongolia dating (via tomb inscription) to this exact time period. The other Türkic era individuals in this study were excavated from conventional Türkic style graves. Features of the Türk period include numerous stone statues and stone offering boxes across the steppe landscape, while burials are often arranged as small groups of graves or single graves inserted into burial grounds of earlier Bronze to Iron ages. Most elites were interred within wooden coffins as single individuals buried beneath a stone mound, and many were buried with whole horses equipped with riding gear (https://edmond.mpdl.mpg.de/imeji/collection/2ZJSw35ZTTa18jEo). Other burials were in small wooden coffins without whole horses beside them. We analyzed individuals from 5 Türk sites in this study: Nomgonii Khundii (NOM), Shoroon Bumbagar (Türkic mausoleum; TUM), Zaan-Khoshuu (ZAA), Uliastai River Lower Terrace (ULI), and Umuumur uul (UGU)." Look only NOM, TUM, ZAA,ULI and UGU10gokk10 (talk)21:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing up the contextual description from the archaeological section of Jeong et al. (2020) with the genetic data table.

The paragraph you quoted (“We analyzed individuals from five Türk sites: NOM, TUM, ZAA, ULI, UGU…”) refers only to the five Türkic-period burials with preserved DNA, not to all burials found in the same sites.

It does not mean that Takhiltyn Khotgor (TKH) is excluded — it simply belongs to the earlier subsection of the same paper (Early Türkic period, 550–600 AD).

In Jeong et al. (2020), the Takhiltyn Khotgor burials TKH001 and TKH002 are explicitly listed in the Türkic dataset (Supplementary Tables S6–S7) with Y-haplogroups C2b1a1b1 (C-F1918) and C2b (basal), dated to 550–600 AD, same as Zaan-Khoshuu (ZAA) and Tamir Ulaan Khoshuu (TUK).

So TKH001 and TKH002 are verified Early Göktürk elite burials, not Xiongnu or unrelated samples.

Please do not remove them — their inclusion is fully supported by the original peer-reviewed data from Jeong et al. 2020 (Science, “A dynamic 6,000-year genetic history of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe”).Gocturk (talk)21:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this to find which samples belong to which culturehttps://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.015/attachment/24836156-2cbf-454c-92b5-a53848be98f3/mmc1.xlsx10gokk10 (talk)21:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Supplementary files, please look at it Gocturk write wrong information:

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867420313210-mmc1.xlsx

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867420313210-mmc2.xlsx

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867420313210-mmc3.xlsx

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867420313210-mmc4.xlsx

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867420313210-mmc5.xlsx

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867420313210-mmc6.pdf10gokk10 (talk)21:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31321-0

Another link10gokk10 (talk)21:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31321-0

Check right hereGocturk (talk)22:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you. look at just upper massage I gave the same10gokk10 (talk)22:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZAA002 → C2b1a1b1 (C-F1918)

ZAA004 → C-F1756

Both are classified under the Türkic period (552–742 CE) from the Zaan-Khoshuu site.

This comes directly from the peer-reviewed dataset — please check the sheet “Table S6” inside the file:

🔗https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867420312663-mmc1.xlsx

So please look carefully — it’s clearly written there.Gocturk (talk)22:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're link doesn't work10gokk10 (talk)22:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must be don’t work in your regionGocturk (talk)22:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The information about samples TKH001, ZAA002, and ZAA004 is directly based on the peer-reviewed dataset (Jeong et al., 2020, Cell). The Y-DNA haplogroups (C-F1918, C-F1756) are clearly listed in Supplementary Table S6. I propose to keep this sourced content and prevent further removals without discussion.Gocturk (talk)22:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several edits by recently blocked editors.

I also can't find some of the sources added[3] such as:

• Jeong, Choongwon (2023). "Genetic history of the Mongol Empire". Science
• Xia, Z. (2024). "Genomic insights into the Uyghur and Turkic expansions". Science Advances

I'll be making a deeper revert. Please restore content that is in line withWP:PAGs.Bogazicili (talk)20:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2015–2016, a Fudan University (Shanghai) study headed by ethnogenomist Wen Shao-Qing (文少卿) in China, ran tests to determine the Y-DNA haplogroup representatives from the Ashide. They found a subclade of the Ashide had the Northeast Asian haplogroup Q1a-L53.

Hi, its also a fake research that the Ashide clan belonged to haplogroup Q1a-L53. The only cited source for this claim is the paper “The haplogroups of the representatives from ancient Turkic clans — Ashina and Ashide” by Wen, Muratov, and Suyunov (2016), published in the self-published bulletin BEHP “Suyun”.

There are several issues with this source:

Lack of academic reliability: The journal BEHP “Suyun” is not a peer-reviewed or recognized academic publication. It appears to be a self-published outlet connected to a private genealogical project, not a scholarly source. Per WP:RS, such publications do not meet the standards for reliable sourcing.

Unverified sampling: The paper itself states that the identities of the individuals tested are not described, and it is unclear whether the tested individuals were genuinely of Ashide descent. Without transparency about the samples, the results cannot be treated as authoritative.

No independent confirmation: The findings have not been replicated or published in any peer-reviewed genetic study. Major population genetics research on early Turkic tribes (e.g., studies published in Nature, Science, Cell) does not support or even mention haplogroup Q in relation to the Ashide.

Use of amateur genealogy data: The article mixes results from FamilyTreeDNA “clusters” and private project interpretations. Such data are not reliable or suitable for use in Wikipedia articles per WP:NOR.

Conclusion: Since this claim is supported only by a self-published, non-peer-reviewed source of questionable reliability, it should be removed from the article to comply with Wikipedia’s sourcing standards. Unless a peer-reviewed academic study confirms this haplogroup attribution, it does not belong in the encyclopedia.2600:100A:B0EE:F866:98F1:1260:D71B:7E17 (talk)17:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be another AI generated response.Bogazicili (talk)18:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not another one, it's the same one Gocturk used onTalk:Ashide.DervotNum4 (talk)18:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire genetics section. Once there are enough secondary sources available, someone can write a nice summary, instead of hunting individualhaplogroups in real or AI-generated fake studies.

I'll do the same inAshide article.Bogazicili (talk)19:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nifushi, I am concerned with your edits.

Genetic studies cited and other studies talk about thegenetically heterogenous nature of the area. You seem to have completely removed this key conclusion, instead focusing on random haplogroups.

Bolding mine:

• A Dynamic 6,000-Year Genetic History of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe, Discussion section:

  The population history of the Eastern Steppe is one marked by the repeated mixing ofdiverse eastern and western Eurasian gene pools

  You completely removed this study in this edit[4]

• What is this source you added from academia?[5]

• Yang, Meng & Zhang 2023, which you summarized. Implications section:

  We found Ashina shared most genetic affinity with post-Iron Age Tungusic and Mongolic Steppe pastoralists, such as Rouran, Xianbei, Khitan, and Heshui_Mohe, and showedgenetic heterogeneity with other ancient Türkic people, suggesting the multiple sources of the Türkic Khanate populations

• FollowingWP:Secondary sources fromTurkic people:
  • The Turkic Peoples in World History, p. 4: "It should also be noted that even the early Turkic peoples, including the Tiele and the Türks, were made up ofheterogeneous elements. Importantly, DNA studies demonstrate that the expansion process of the Turkic peoples involved the Turkicization of various non-Turkic-speaking groups. The "Turks" intermixed with and Turkicized various indigenous groups across Eurasia: Uralic hunter-gatherers in northern Eurasia; Mongolic nomads in Mongolia; Indo-European-speaking nomads and sedentary populations in Xinjiang, Transoxiana, Iran, Kazakhstan, and South Siberia; and Indo-European elements (the Byzantine subjects, among others) in Anatolia and the Balkans.11"
  • A Comparative Analysis of Chinese Historical Sources and y-dna Studies with Regard to the Early and Medieval Turkic Peoples: "Both Chinese histories and modern dna studies indicate that the early and medieval Turkic peoples were made up ofheterogeneous populations"

Based on the fact that there seems to be no consensus about this section, I am removing it completely perWP:ONUSBogazicili (talk)18:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Türk olduğunu düşündüğüm ve kendimi daha rahat anlatmak için Türkçe yazacağım. Aşide üzerine yapılan genetik çalışma referansı bana ait değil.Ashide sayfasından. Banlanan kullanıcı referansın güvenirliğinden şüphelenip kaldırdı. Kullanıcının kaynakları nasıl abuse ettiğini görünce geri getirdim ve buraya da ekledim.

A Dynamic 6,000-Year Genetic History of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe

Eğer incelerseniz bu araştırmanın bütün Doğu step genetik havuzu olduğunu, -sadece Türk kağanlığı örneklerini- kapsamadığını görürsünüz.

Alıntıladığınız yerin altına bakmanızı rica ederim. Bazı grupların daha karışmamış, bazılarının da daha karışmış olduğunu vurguluyor. Eastern-steppe'deki karışan popülasyonları baz alarak Türk dönemi örneklerinin yarı Batı Avrasyalı ve yarı Doğu Avrasyalı olduğunu iddia etmek açıkçaWikipedia:Reliable sources veWikipedia:Neutral point of view'a aykırı düşüyor.

• Aynı çalışma Eastern Steppe Moğol dönemi ve diğer asyatik halklar için ne diyor bakın.

“...On average, Mongol-period individuals have a much higher eastern Eurasian affinity than previous empires… 55%–64% Ulaanzuukh_SlabGrave and 21%–27% of Han-related ancestry… Since the fall of the Mongol empire in 1368 CE, the genetic profile of the Mongolian populations has not substantially changed.”

“Overall, our findings reveal a strong east-west genetic division among Bronze Age Eastern Steppe populations through the end of the Early Iron Age.”

“…individuals associated with these burial types show a clear northeastern Asian (ANA-related) genetic profile… indistinguishable from the earlier eastMongolia_preBA individual dating to ca. 4600 BCE, suggesting a long-term (>4,000-year) stability of this prehistoric eastern Mongolian gene pool.”

Değiştirdiğim kısma gelelim.

• Yang, Meng & Zhang 2023 Bu çalışma zaten henüz genetik kısmını yeni editlediğimAshina tribe sayfasında bulunuyor ve Türk dönemi örnekleri üzerine değil, imparatoriçe Aşina'nın bireysel örneği üzerine yapımış bir çalışma. 4-5'e bölünmesi gereken bir paragraf aynı alıntı ile okunmayacak kadar uzun ve düzensiz duruyor. Değiştirdiğim son kısım ise şurası: "A genetic study published in Nature in May 2018 suggested that central Asian nomadic populations may have been Turkicized by an East Asian minority elite, resulting in a small but detectable increase in East Asian ancestry. However, these authors also found that Türkic period individuals were extremely genetically diverse, with some individuals being of complete West Eurasian descent. To explain this diversity of ancestry, they propose that there were also incoming West Eurasians moving eastward on the Eurasian steppe during the Türkic period, resulting in admixture." Bu alıntı Altın Orda'da dönemi için bir kişiyi baz alarak söylenmiş bir alıntıyken bunu Türk dönemi örneklerinin Asyalı bir elit tarafından Türkize edildiği bariz bir çarpıtmadan ibaret. Yazarların kendileri örneğin bir köle olabileceğinden bahsediyor.

Additionally, we analysed ten culturally unaffiliated Medieval-period nomads, most of whom showed pronounced East Asian ancestry, albeit in very different proportions (Extended Data Fig. 8). We also find the presence of an individual of West Eurasian descent buried together with members of Jochi Khan’s Golden Horde army from the Ulytau mountains (see Supplementary Information section 4: DA28 is East Asian and DA29 is European). This could suggest assimilation of distinct groups into the Medieval Golden Horde, but this individual may also represent a slave or a servant of West Eurasian descent attached to the service of the Golden Horde members. These results suggest that Turkic cultural customs were imposed by an East Asian minority elite onto central steppe nomad populations, resulting in a small detectable increase in East Asian ancestry.

Sevgili, @Bogazicili. Wikipedia'ya girdiğimden beri varsın ve editlerine güveniyorum. Benim bu kadar uzun yanlış anlaşılmalara sürekli girebilecek bir zamanım yok. Talk'tan kısaca sorabilirsin. Ayrıca herhangi bir açıklama bile dinlemeden "Potential misrepresentation" gibi şeyler yazman çok rahatsız edici benim açımdan. İyi günler dilerim.

Nifushi (talk)19:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not sure what happened here.

When I said "Potential misrepresentation of studies and literature", I didn't mean you are doing something bad on purpose. For example, you might be unfamiliar with other studies in other articles such asTurkic people orWP:PAGs (such as preference for secondary sources). Or I might be wrong myself.

I just tried to mean we can do a better summary of literature.Bogazicili (talk)15:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Göktürks, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on thisseasonal occasion. Spread theWikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk)07:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk)07:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• B-Class level-4 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
• B-Class vital articles in History
• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class Turkey articles
• Low-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• B-Class Central Asia articles
• High-importance Central Asia articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• B-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• B-Class Mongols articles
• Mid-importance Mongols articles
• WikiProject Mongols articles
• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles