Template talk:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Where is Timurid Empire? please add it.Einsatzgruppen00:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Where is the pre- Gokturk states? Huns are huge gap for the box.--5.47.132.218 (talk)19:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where are Scyths, Huns and Avars?Scyth,Xiongnu,Hunnic,Hepthalite andAvar are missing!— Precedingunsigned comment added byEMr KnG (talk •contribs)18:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica write thatScythian member of a nomadic people originally of Iranian stock. Xiongnu and Hunnic empires were not a Turkic empire. SeeXiongnu andHuns articles. --Qara Khan15:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter what he says biased Britannica and biased Wikipedia articles. Scyths were a Turkic people. If the Hun Empires, the Turkic states. All scientific documents to prove this. But Western propagandists can say otherwise, this is perfectly normal.78.160.194.131 (talk)12:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source ? this summary is my mistake. Yes, most population of Ghaznavid, Kilji etc. empires were non-Turkic also official language of the empires were Persian but it does not means these empires were non-Turkic. Just Turks used and improvedPersian culture. Different excamples:
1. Most population of theYuan Dynasty wereHan Chinese and official language of the dynasty wasChinese but Yuan emperors wereMongol
2. Most population of theAyyubid Dynasty wereArabs and official language of the dynasty wasArabic but Ayyubid rulers wereKurdish
3. Most population of theSeljuq Sultanate of Rum were Turk, Greek and Armenian but official language of the sultanate wasPersian
4. Offical language ofFrance wasLatin until 1539 (SeeOrdinance of Villers-Cotterêts)
5. Offical language ofEngland wasNorman-French until 14th century (Latin was used in writing.)
I can write many excamples but I think these is enough. ---Qara Khan 18:09, March 6 2013 (UTC)
OK. I've verified template revision history and the endless edit war/reverting started by IP users from the beginning up until now. So please all editors write their opinions about these stuffs:
Solution: Obviously do not add them again. Clearly theses additions are POV-pushing and wrong. They are against Wikipedia policies and lead to the further disruptive/non-constructive edits. ReadWP:SOAP andWP:NOT.
Solution: I don't think adding of them is a problem. They are related to bothTurkic peoples (rulers) andPersian people (culture and language). It's better to add more details about them to the template (good for readers and other editors, optional).
Summary: Only add/remove articles/wikilinks with clear status and well-sourced content. Template content must match with the content of those articles. Every massive removal and controversial addition should be discussed on the talk page and reach consensus.Zheek (talk)10:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the result of this consensus section/thread is obvious and clear. IP-hopper did not provide any evidence/reason or RS materials to reject our reasons (me and Kansas Bear), so the future edits/contributions will be based on this consensus and provided solutions.Zheek (talk)18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 | Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
Kyrgyz kaganat 840-924
96.55.168.51 (talk)22:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Redrose64 (talk)13:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]Surprised to see the Timurid and Mughal dynasties are not listed here. Clearly there is no argument/ debate about these (obviously Turkic with slight Mongol pretensions, heavily Persianised and based in (and married to) Afghanistan and India.Could you kindly add these?— Precedingunsigned comment added by182.178.129.32 (talk)23:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was:moved to{{History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century}}. It is noted for the record that the template should be edited to reflect the new title. —Darkwind (talk)01:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century →Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century – "Turks" is not synonymous withTurkic, and the scope of this template coversTurkic history, notHistory of Turkey. Turk primarily refers to "a native or inhabitant ofTurkey, or a person ofTurkish descent" (Oxford Dictionaries)[2] (i.e.,Turkish people). While historical usage of Turk refers to "member of any of the ancient central Asian peoples who spoke Turkic languages..."[3], this is not the primary or only definition. When words have more than one meaning, Wikipedia should be specific to avoid confusion and to be more correct.Cavann (talk)21:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. a native or inhabitant of Turkey, or a person of Turkish descent.
2. historical a member of any of the ancient central Asian peoples who spoke Turkic languages, including the Seljuks and Ottomans.
Cavann, you have the logic problem.Qara khan07:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MADDE 66-Türk Devletine vatandaşlık bağı ile bağlı olan herkesTürktür.
ARTICLE 66- Everyone bound to theTurkish state through the bond of citizenship is aTurkish.
Result: Turk and Turkish aren't the same.Qara Khan19:58, 09 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen the ugly view of template until user Diannaa edited, in Wikipedia. If you look carefully, then you will see irregular arrangement of dynasties, khanates, khaganates in the template. --Qara khan16:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
can someone add all turkic empires and dynasties look onlist of turkic dynasties and countries— Precedingunsigned comment added byMehmeett21 (talk •contribs)16:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn´t been proven that Avars were turkish— Precedingunsigned comment added by91.96.179.105 (talk)14:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the sources. Cumans and Kipchaks were not the same. They joined to make a confederation.[6] - Vasary mentions them having separate origins. He states, "By the 1030s the nomadic confederacy of the Kipchaks dominated thevast territories of the present-day Kazak steppe, the Uz (or Oguz) occupied the area between the Yayik (Ural) and the Volga rivers...On the basis of Marvazı’s text we may claim that theKipchaks and Cumans were originally two separate peoples...The Cumansmust have lived to the east of the large bend of the Huanghe, in the vicinity of other Nestorian peoples such as, for example, the originally Turkic Onguts. The Kitans spread their dominions to include this territory at the end of the tenth century, and the Kitan expansion must have expelled a large number of tribes from their former habitats. The Cumans, or Cuns,must have reached the territory of the Kipchak tribal confederacy...thefinal result is indisputable: two Turkic confederacies, the Kipchaks and theCumans, had merged by the twelfth century. A cultural and political intermingling took place." The writings of al Marwazi (c. 1120) state that the 'Qun' people (as the Cumans were called in Hungary) came from the northern Chinese borders - "the land of Qitay".[7] - Peter Golden: "Elements of the Kipchaks remained in Siberia while other groups were pushed still further westward in association with the Qun ["Kun" as Cumans were called by the Hungarians] migration...The precise relationship between the Cumans and Kipchaks is not clear...We cannot ascertain whether the Cumans conquered the Kipchaks or simply represent this mass of largely Kipchak-Turkic speaking tribes in the west." This source -[8] also makes it clear they were 2 different tribes - page 75 - 76.[9] - " In the beginning,Cumans and Kipchak, who are two different communities living closeto each other, have become a single ethnic group after Cuman-Kipchakfederation was established in the 13th century (See GUMILOV 2000: 104)."Britannica is outdated and doesn't take newer sources such as these into account. There are still more sources that mention a "Cuman-Kipchak" confederation.Smart Nomad (talk)18:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiUser:Qara xan, I think "Cuman-Kipchak confederation" is more accurate since it includes the Kipchaks, thus the name includes both nations of the confederation. It should be changed. Kind Regards,Smart Nomad (talk)22:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller, If you knew a little information about Medieval History you would not dothis.
1.Mongol Empire was not a Turkic Empire.
2. TheYenisei Kirghiz were an ancient Turkic people not a state or dynasty.
3.Eldiguzids (Ildenizids) andSalghurids - Look at bottom of the template (Other Turkic dynasties). I just removed repetition.
P.S. This template is aboutpre-14th century Turkic History, so i have removedOttomans,Aq Qoyunlu,Khanates of the Caucasus etc. Thank you. --Qara Khan18:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mongol Empire was Turkic state. politicians of Mongol Empire was Uyghur Turkic, language of Mongol Empire was Uyghur Turkic, soldiers of Mongol Empire was almost all Turk and Ghenghis Khan was a Shatuo Turk. I thinkOther category is unnecessary. And Yenisei Kirghiz is inList of Turkic dynasties and countries article.83.66.219.62 (talk)10:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
missing many dynasties in the list look on List of Turkic dynasties and countries.
Should be added Huns to theHistory of The Turkic peoples template. Huns are very important part in Turkic history.31.200.10.66 (talk)12:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But Xiongnu is in theMongolic History template. Huns were Turkic people and adopted by the scientific community. For instance according to Oxford Huns were Turkic people, Huns were Turkic people in USA textbook. According to French Turkolog Jean Paul Roux Huns were Turkic people. Huns were believed old Turkic religion Tengrism. Attila and Mete Han (Modu Chanyu) were Turk. Huns were Turkic speaking. Hunnic Turkic language look like Chuvash Turkic language. According to genetic research Huns were Turk. Hunnic DNA is identical Anatolian DNA.31.200.22.192 (talk)11:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Mehmeet21! If you prove, I can consider you.31.200.17.97 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)RemovedYueban. ReadTalk:List_of_Turkic_dynasties_and_countries#Latest_version— Precedingunsigned comment added byToghuchar (talk •contribs)03:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have fully protected the template for one week because of theedit warring. Ignorance of that policy seems to be widespread on this page, so please click on the link and read. I have no idea who is in the right in the dispute, but the edit warriors are all in the wrong for edit warring like that — some of the worst of its kind that I've seen — and are lucky not be blocked. Please try to reachconsensus through discussion on this page. If that turns out to be impossible, I can only recommenddispute resolution, but it is with a heavy heart, because I rarely see anything come of it in this kind of situation. This page is your best bet, in my opinion, so please give it a serious shot. If the edit warring recommences after the protection expires, I'll start handing out blocks.Bishonen |talk15:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
RedirectedTemplate:History of Turkıc Peoples to this page.Toghuchar (talk)06:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the edit warring IP would care to explain why they insist on adding two empires that clearly did not existpre-14th century! Just some educational information for the IP,14th century. --Kansas Bear (talk)17:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
| Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
The Rasulid dynasty are not of Turkic origins, this theory have been debunked many times.Dovahkiiniq (talk)14:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please providereliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)15:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]This template is badly in need of a restructure. Currently it takes up way too much space when added into articles. CompareTemplate:History of Georgia (country) andTemplate:History of Iran for example. --HistoryofIran (talk)13:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let's keep an eye on it...पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk)10:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]Hello, @पाटलिपुत्र. I amglad you from your revision. I want to hear youropinion on this if possible.
I believe the representation picture of Turkic peoples should not be limited to a specific racial or ethnic stereotype, such as being exclusively "Eastern Eurasian" in appearance.Turkic peoples have adiverse range of physical characteristics due to the vast geographical and historical contexts in which they reside.
Origin of these proto ancestors isunknown. Modern definition is collection of diverse ethnic groupsspeaking a Turkic language as our WikipediaTurkic peoples page suggests. Ethnic group encompasses a wide array of individuals who live across a significant region, includingCentral Asia,Western Asia,the Caucasus, and parts ofEastern Europe. This diverse population exhibits various physical traits that cannot be simplified into asingle racial category.
It'salright if you reconsider using the current picture. However, I would like to insist on recommending a representation thatbetterreflects the Eastern Eurasian type. The modern majority of Turkic peoples, such as theTurkmens,Kazakhs,Gagauz,Uzbeks,Tatars,Chuvash, and many others, are a blend of Western and Eastern Eurasian characteristics.
The mural of Turkic peoples in Beshbalik depicts theQocho Uygurs during theMongol Empire. I believe there are numerous other representations available that would be more suitable. During the time of the Qocho Uygurs in the Mongol Empire, the majority of Turkic peoples, including the Cuman-Kipchaks, Volga Bulgars, Kimaks, and Oghuzes,resided outside of this specific region.
As the origin place isunknown and the majority of Turkic peopleslived outside that specific region, and considering theheavily corrupted state of the mural, I prefer to keep the current version. However, I am open to discussing the possibility of replacing it withhigh-quality representation pics of other Turkic groups such as theCuman-Kipchaks,Volga Bulgars,Oghuzes,Pechenegs,Qarluks (ancestors of Qocho Uygurs), and others. Representative pictures of these groups wereextensively documented by both themselves and their neighboring communities.
With my best regards.
Akatziri (talk)14:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
