Talk:Turkic history

Problematic article

This article reads like a Pan-Turkist propaganda pamphlet than a wikipedia's article:

• Inappropriate tone, e.g.:

  • this race [sic] had a warrior and nomadic culture

  • The history of all people that emerged in Eurasia and North Africa has been affected by the movements of the Turks from afar and close. Turks also played an important role in bringing Eastern cultures to the West and Western cultures to the East. Their own religion became the pioneer and defender of the foreign religions they adopted after Tengrism, and they helped their spread and development (Mani religion, Judaism, Buddhism, Orthodox, Nestorian Christianity and Islam).

• Unsourced maps;
• At least one unreliable source, e.g.:
  • Türklerin ve Tatarların Kökeni, s. 143-178, Selenge Yayınları, Ağustos 2007 by pseudo-scholar Mirfatyh Zakiev;
• Cherry-picking sources and probably misinterpreting sources to push WP:Fringe, e.g.:

  • Most scholars believe that the Turks first appeared on the stage of history as a political community during the reign of the Huns (Hiung-nu or Shiongnu).

• Unsourced claims pushing WP:Fringe, consistent with LTA Tirgil34's MO (e.g. "Claiming that various Indo-European cultures of Central Asia, like the Yamna culture, the Afanasevo culture, the Andronovo culture and the Karasuk culture, were of Turkic origin."), e.g.:

  • It is argued that the ancestors of the Turks started with the Afanasievo culture between 2500 BC and 1700 BC and continued with the Andronovo culture between 1700 BC and 1200 BC.

    • which contradicts reliably-sourced statements found in Andronovo culture

      • It is almost universally agreed among scholars that the Andronovo culture was Indo-Iranian.

    • & Afanasievo culture

      • The authors conclude that the Afanasievo people were Indo-Europeans, perhaps ancestors of the Tocharians.

Other editors, e.g. @Krakkos:, @Qiushufang:, @HistoryofIran:, @Whhu22:, etc., what to do with this article? I'm thinking of copy-pasting well-sourced materials from Turkic peoples#History.

References

Erminwin (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is indeed dubious. Erminwin's proposal sounds like a good idea. Krakkos (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah either that or completely delete this article. It adds zero to Wikipedia, and may encourage others to add this to other articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

So when we read that your complain about article, you just don't like it. WP:JDLI Wickelodeon (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

At least one unreliable source?

• R. Grousset, L'Empire des steppes, Paris, 1960
• DE. Guignes, Histoire generale *des Huns des Turcs et des Mongols, Paris, 1756.
• Jean-Paul Roux, Historie des Turcs, 1984.
• Jean-Paul Roux, Timur, 1994.
• Fayard Paris, Historie des Turcs, 1984.
• D.Sinor, Aspects of Altaic Civilization, 1963.
• M. Barthold, Turkestan down to the Mongol Invansıon, Londra, 1968.
• E. Berl, Historie de l'Europe d'Attila a Tamerlan, Paris, 1946.
• M.A. Czaplıcka, The Turks of Central Asia in History and at the Present Day, Oxford, 1918.
• W. Eberhard, Kultur und Siedlung der Randvölker China, 1942.
• L. Hambis, La Haute-Asie, Paris, 1953.
• Hammer-Purgstall, Von, Historie de l'Empire ottoman depuis son origine jusqu!a nos jours, Paris, 1835.
• H.H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, Londra, 1876.

But no, they funded by Turko-Persian goverment unlike our glorious Iranian storytelle.. historians. Also Turkicness of Xiognhu's are fringe theory as Iranianness of Sakas. Its one of the strong theories for predicted race of that state.

Wickelodeon (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he meant cited sources. Also, please keep your personal opinion to yourself and don't randomly make silly accusations, see WP:SOAPBOX, WP:OR, WP:GOODFAITH, and WP:FORUM. NOTE: This user just recently attempted to alter sourced information. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:: By "at least one unreliable source" I meant:

pseudo-scholar Mirfatyh Zakiev's book Türklerin ve Tatarların Kökeni, s. 143-178, Selenge Yayınları, Ağustos 2007 (which is cited & for which there exists an Engish translation by Norm Kisamov in Kisamov's pseudoscientific blog turkicworld.org (blacklisted); if anybody'd be curious enough to read it).

Hasan Celal Güzel, Kemal Çiçek, Salim Koca Türkler Ansiklopedisi, Adana, 2002 (which is mentioned in Turkish book section but not cited inline), whose volume 1 contains this Şevket Koçsoy's article "Türk Tarihi Kronolojisi / Sevket Koçsoy [s.73-188]" (pp. 34-248) (readable here), which seemingly claims that various peoples and cultures were either proto-Turks or Turks: Anau, Afanasievo, Andronovo, Scythians/Sakas, etc. and even... Zhou dynasty (I admit that I cannot read Turkish & used Google translate to understand it; still I think it very unlikely that Şevket Koçsoy did not make those Pan-Turkist claims yet Google translate indicates that he did). Erminwin (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I see, this is quite problematic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of a sourced information

@HistoryofIran could you please explain why exactly did you deleted an important part of the top of the page? Xiongnu and Huns were not classified as definite Turkic on the page, so I don't think that "origins are disputed" is a valid reason. BerkBerk68^talk 16:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Per my edit summary as well as due to the fact that 3 out of the 4 citations had WP:VERIFY issues. The only one that didn't, was one of the sources that was in favour of the Turkic component of the Xiongnu, which isn't neutral, considering the article itself proposes various theories. I'm not sure why the information also said that the Huns and Xiongnu were basically the same. This specific bit of information was also discussed in the section up above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Yeah, but I still didn't understand the reason why you deleted every single information that contains Xiongnu. Xiongnu's "Turkicness" is a debate subject, yes, but everyone would admit the importance of Xiongnu for the Turkic history. Information of acts at this page does not have to be done by Turks directly, as its how it is at Persian Khosrow I's act is also being included. I am bringing back calendrical informations related to Xiongnu. BerkBerk68^talk 21:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me also add that I shall check for better sources on Xiongnu subject and re-add a better & objective text about them at the top of the page. Their importance and necessity for this article is irrefutable. BerkBerk68^talk 22:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on why the Xiongnu are important in Turkic history? Also adding "According to some fragmentary information that can be found in the Chinese histories, The Xiongnu were Turkic and not Mongolic.[1]" still makes it seem as the Xiongnu = Turkic. There are loads of theories. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Nation of Xiongnu is a tribal confederation state, which contained almost every nomadic tribes of the region. Majority of these tribes are Turco-Mongolian, that effected every single major nomadic population in Central Asia and one of these major populations are Turks. There is no doubt about that. The main topic that is currently being discussed by researchers is, origins of the elites/ruling class. Also the classification of Chinese (who has most records about both structure of Xiongnu and Tujue) is pretty notable for the article. The reference also contains information of the fact that historians have not classified a specific origin to the Xiongnu. BerkBerk68^talk 00:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It is uncertain what the majority of these tribes were, I highly recommend you to read the article Xiongnu. Yes, they have not classified a specific origin indeed, but that mention becomes irrelevant when you add "According to some fragmentary information that can be found in the Chinese histories, The Xiongnu were Turkic and not Mongolic.[1]" right after. Respectfully, this did not improve the huge WP:POV issue of the article at all. So I ask you again, what relevance does the Xiongnu have in Turkic history? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the situation pretty fits to WP:POV since Chinese historical sources with significant amount of importance confirms that information (Book of Zhou vol.50 and History of Northern Dynasties vol. 99) and the reference itself does not claim that Xiongnu is Turkic but only gives information about the fact that significant Chinese sources claimed that Xiongnu is Turkic. "It is uncertain what the majority of these tribes were" is an irrelevant and/or false statement since today we know the fact that Ashina clan, founder tribe of the Turkic Khaganate was a direct component of the confederation of Xiongnu. So it is not "uncertain" that a major Eurasian tribe who established the next superpower of the steppes and unified nomads under the name "Türük/𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜" for the first time in history, were direct descendants of Xiongnu and this fact alone proves the state of Xiongnu's importance for the Turkic civilization by giving us the fact that Turkic civilization had its last developments under Xiongnu and took its final root shape as Göktürks. I will also add the Ashina and Göktürks' descendancy of Xiongnu to the article to clarify Xiongnu's importance to the Turkic civilization on readers' minds.

Let me also add that most of the informations written here is also stated at the article Xiongnu. So I didn't exactly understand why I had to explain the importance of the Xiongnu for the Turkic civilization & history to a person who already knows all these facts written above.

Respectfully, BerkBerk68^talk 16:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is mentioned in the Xiongnu article, amongst multiple other theories, i.e. the Turkic origin is a disputed theory, just like the others. So because the Ashina are supposedly descended from the Xiongnu, the latter are considered an important part of Turkic history? Perhaps the history of Germany is relevant to Russia as well? The Romanovs (and many other prominent European houses) were after all descended a German house. "this fact alone proves the state of Xiongnu's importance for the Turkic civilization by giving us the fact that Turkic civilization had its last developments under Xiongnu and took its final root shape as Göktürks." Are these your own words or from a source? And let's say that was the case, why should the whole history of the Xiongnu still be shown in an article named 'Turkic history', when they possibly weren't even Turkic? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure about that you have checked my edits. I (with the references) already mentioned the fact that Xiongnu's Turkicness (or the opposite) is not a confirmed fact. Also I doubt that you understood the structure of Nomadic elites & tribes. Cause of my uncertainty is that you compared a whole Eurasian tribe with a 17-20th century European dynasty which is completely irrelevant. Ashinas are a tribe who established the first empire under the "Türük" identity, and played the role of governing class there. A tribe, especially a founding tribe is closer to an ethnic identity to a European dynasty. Since you are a Persian I assume that you know history of Afsharids probably more than me, and you probably also know that the Afsharid tribe is not equavelant to the Afsharid dynasty of Nader Shah, more of a population identity itself. So Romanovs are TOTALLY irrelevant to Ashinas' and several other Turkic tribes' descendancy to the Xiongnu. Turkic population then had a structure of tribal populations, and later these tribes and even their sub-branches created their own seperate states.

Not only structure, but comparing Xiongnu and Turkic Khaganate, with Russian Empire and Germans doesn't even makes sense at all. Turkic theory of Xiongnu is an accepted thought by a significant amount of historians, meanwhile I dont think a professional researcher would claim that Russians are German.

I guess I have explained you the situation properly, now I have to add that it is not specificly about the Ashinas. Chinese records described whole Tujue itself as descendants of Xiongnu aswell, as its mentioned in the Xiongnu page. Also I will try to improve the page towards the information of Göktürk tribes being descendants Xiongnu, by giving more and better references. BerkBerk68^talk 18:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let me spell it out like this; This is just what the lede of the Xiongnu article says;

Attempts to identify the Xiongnu with later groups of the western Eurasian Steppe remain controversial. Scythians and Sarmatians were concurrently to the west. The identity of the ethnic core of Xiongnu has been a subject of varied hypotheses, because only a few words, mainly titles and personal names, were preserved in the Chinese sources. The name Xiongnu may be cognate with that of the Huns and/or the Huna,[9][10][11] although this is disputed.[12][13] Other linguistic links—all of them also controversial—proposed by scholars include Iranian,[14][15][16] Mongolic,[17] Turkic,[18][19] Uralic,[20] Yeniseian,[12][21][22][23] or multi-ethnic.[24]

This is what you have added in the Turkic history article;

Historians have been unable to confirm whether or not the Xiongnu were a Turkic People. According to some fragmentary information that can be found in the Chinese histories, The Xiongnu were Turkic and not Mongolic.[6]

Now, please explain how you are not violating WP:POV? And this also brings us back to my previous question, why should the whole history of the Xiongnu still be shown in an article named 'Turkic history', when they possibly weren't even Turkic? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh god, I have to express that I'm tired of repeating myself. Can you please read my reference again? Does it say that Xiongnu was a Turkic State? It doesn't, right? I am pretty sure that it tells about the claim of CHINESE SOURCES, there is no such a claim that the information given there is confirmed by the academic community, it literally gives the information of the fact that Xiongnu is not a confirmed Turkic state.

Therefore, there is no contradiction, WP:POV is completely applied.

Now, why we got to have calendrical history of Xiongnu included in this article is, the fact that most of the Turkic tribes are Xiongnu descendants. Turks being descendant of Xiongnu doesn't have to mean that Xiongnu is a Turkic nation. Tribal Confederations can be multinational. I have already told these above. Please act more cooperating and try to empathize with other editors. BerkBerk68^talk 19:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You are indeed repeating yourself, hence why I have to ask you the same unanswered questions everytime. Feel free to alter your comment, I will reply later. HistoryofIran (talk)

Every single Question of you is answered. You, instead of replying those answers, just ask the same question again. Every information added is referred, there is no contradict (You have refused the sentence "Historians have been unable to confirm whether or not the Xiongnu were a Turkic People" obviously refers to the fact that ethnic origins of Xiongnu is disputed).

You also keep asking "Why Xiongnu is important for Turkic history" and I have told you that Ashina together with the majority Göktürk tribes are descendants of Xiongnu, you have never disclaimed that or had a counter-argument for that, just asked the same question instead.

I am sorry to say that you are not really cooperating and acting towards personal opinions instead of improving the page. There is nothing left to do about this subject. BerkBerk68^talk 21:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Oh god, I have to express that I'm tired of repeating myself. Can you please read my reference again? Does it say that Xiongnu was a Turkic State? It doesn't, right? I am pretty sure that it tells about the claim of CHINESE SOURCES, there is no such a claim that the information given there is confirmed by the academic community, it literally gives the information of the fact that Xiongnu is not a confirmed Turkic state.

Oh god, it seems I was mistaken in giving you multiple chances to explain yourself, so let’s reverse the roles: There are multiple theories (Iranian,[14][15][16] Mongolic,[17] Turkic,[18][19] Uralic,[20] Yeniseian,[12][21][22][23] or multi-ethnic.[24]), yet you (conveniently) chose to mention only the Turkic one? That is called cherry-picking and violation of WP:NPOV. Let me quote just the first line of WP:NPOV for you; "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

"Now, why we got to have calendrical history of Xiongnu included in this article is, the fact that most of the Turkic tribes are Xiongnu descendants. Turks being descendant of Xiongnu doesn't have to mean that Xiongnu is a Turkic nation. Tribal Confederations can be multinational.

So what? This article is about Turkic history, something that they aren't confirmed to be. This is what the first line of the article says; "Turkic history is the common history between today's Turkic peoples." Tribal Confederations can indeed be multinational, that is just one of the many theories for Xiongnu. Also, a quick look in the Ashina tribe article shows that even their origins (not ethnic) are disputed, interesting.

"(You have refused the sentence "Historians have been unable to confirm whether or not the Xiongnu were a Turkic People" obviously refers to the fact that ethnic origins of Xiongnu is disputed).

Except I haven't, I literally mentioned it in an argument. Let me refresh your memory; Yes, they have not classified a specific origin indeed, but that mention becomes irrelevant when you add "According to some fragmentary information that can be found in the Chinese histories, The Xiongnu were Turkic and not Mongolic.[1" right after.]

"I am sorry to say that you are not really cooperating and acting towards personal opinions instead of improving the page.

I am sorry to see you that you are unable to adhere WP:GF by refraining from casting random WP:ASPERSIONS towards your fellow editors simply because they dont agree with your edits. I am also sorry to see that you are unable to adhere to WP:POV by choosing to include just one side amongst many.

"There is nothing left to do about this subject."

If it only was that easy eh. This article still reads out like a Pan-Turkist propaganda pamphlet, a concern which was made since the very creation of this talk page. Since you are so eager to keep the Turkic theory in the article, I won't remove it. However, I will include all the other theories as well per WP:POV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, my edits didn't contain purpose of cherrypicking. You are talking about that a state who contained majority Turkic tribes of its era is not important for Turkic history, but meanwhile saying that I am cherrypicking because I didn't write about Iranian or Mongolian theories of Xiongnu. What is relevant for Turkic history of this article is the Turkic heritage of Xiongnu, not the rest.

"Oh god, it seems I was mistaken in giving you multiple chances to explain yourself" Are you serious? You should obviously check WP:CIV. Let me quote third line of Avoiding Incivility for you: take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully.

And no, I do not disagree with the fact that this article has been under ideological influences. It was a direct translation with low quality maps, but it doesn't change the fact that Xiongnu has high importance for the Turkic history. BerkBerk68^talk 23:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Okay, first of all, my edits didn't contain purpose of cherrypicking. You are talking about that a state who contained majority Turkic tribes of its era is not important for Turkic history, but meanwhile saying that I am cherrypicking because I didn't write about Iranian or Mongolian theories of Xiongnu. What is relevant for Turkic history of this article is the Turkic heritage of Xiongnu, not the rest."

This is about Turkic history...but you included a group which isn't even confirmed to be Turkic? Sure, I don't oppose mentioning Turkic tribes having a connection Xiongnu or whatever, but including all the history of the possibly non-Turkic Xiongnu in the chronology? Also, what page did you use for Historical development of the pre-dynastic Khitan? There are no pages cited.

"Are you serious? You should obviously check WP:CIV. Let me quote third line of Avoiding Incivility for you: take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully.

WP:SANCTIONGAME. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Deletion of Chinese records

@HistoryofIran could you please explain me why did you see historical Chinese records' classification about the Xiongnu as an insignificant information? BerkBerk68^talk 23:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not call it "insignificant information". I already explained that in my edit summary, please see WP:PRIMARY SOURCE and WP:AGE MATTERS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I wish you checked the reference. it's not a primary source, the information is from an article at JSTOR. But there is no problem, I am adding it back. BerkBerk68^talk 23:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were referring to my other edit where I removed the 7th century Chinese source. I removed the information because I added it in a different way. Now that you have restored it, it mentions that they were possibly Turkic twice, and that they were not of Mongolian origin, but possibly were…? HistoryofIran (talk)

It is actually referring to the Chinese source instead of the actuality, The fact that Chinese historical records' claim is on that way doesn't mean the Mongolian theory is false, and I think that it is obvious on integrity and continuity of meaning. Same with Turkic situation, theories and historical records are completely different thing. I think we are pretty close to the consensus right now. BerkBerk68^talk 00:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but it only makes the flow bizarre and less neutral. I would like to remind you of WP:POV again. HistoryofIran (talk)

I... really don't understand. It has nothing to do with theories. It is just expressing what Chinese historical records say and the historical records actually say that... It's used on Xiongnu page aswell as a primary source, what I did is just finding a secondary source to be more appropriate. BerkBerk68^talk 01:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I have added the emphasis of the fact that Theories are independent from Chinese records and uncertainity of ethnic origin despite what the Chinese records say. BerkBerk68^talk 01:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Please read this several times, and then the rest of this page. I am not going to remind you of this rule again. Your recent changes heavily violates that. Moreover, I checked the Lee, Joo-Yup; Kuang, Shuntu (2017) source (whose specific page(s) you havent cited either), and it seems you have taken information out of context;

"It is therefore likely that the early and medieval Turkic peoples themselves did not form a homogeneous entity and that some of them, non-Turkic by origin, had become Turkicised at some point in history. Accordingly, one may also suggest that many of the modern Turkic-speaking populations, who exhibit more diverse haplogroup compositions, are not direct descendants of the early Turkic peoples (Table 3). On a final note, one should remember that medieval Chinese historians did not classify the Inner Asian tribes into Turkic-speaking and Mongolic-speaking groups. Likewise, Muslim writers generally viewed the Mongols and other non Turkic Inner Asian tribes as a branch of Turks" - page 226.

"Notably, the Xiongnu themselves, whether they were a Turkic-speaking entity or not, were a hybrid people composed of carriers of both East and Inner Eurasian haplogroups C2, N, and Q and West Eurasian haplogroup R1a1." - page 228-229.

And you still haven't told me what page(s) you used for Historical development of the pre-dynastic Khitan - I wonder if I uncover more problematic stuff there as well? I am reverting it back my version. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The claim of that the reference given is "not supporting the given information" is false. P. 199: "The Origins, Identity, and Physiognomy of the Early and Medieval Turkic Peoples according to Chinese Histories The Xiongnu - The Xiongnu were the first nomadic empire-builders in Inner Asian history. Historians have been unable to confirm whether or not the Xiongnu were a Turkic people.6 According to some fragmentary information on the Xiongnu language that can be found in the Chinese histories, the Xiongnu were Turkic and not Mongolic." Please check the references better next time. You have already done that before, claimed that the information containing Chinese records is primary source and deleted it meanwhile it wasn't. "Medieval historians" and "Chinese historical records" are not the same thing, if you think that it is worth adding the page, then you'd add it. You shouldn't delete other informations written. I am reviving the deleted information. BerkBerk68^talk 00:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You took a out of context excerpt from a source which clearly had a lot more to it, as I've demonstrated in the later pages. And please drop the false accusations, I already told you that I misunderstood you and was referring to another source. I don't see anything wrong in removing sourced information when it heavily violates our guidelines. I have reverted you again, if you continue you will be reported to WP:ANI for violating WP:POV multiple times. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

More proof that information was been taken out of context/cherry-picked. A lot of the information by the source is simply narrating what Chinese sources (i.e. primary sources) say. It shouldn't be taken as a fact, especially not a certain part to push the "Xiongnu = Turkic" narrative;

"In the official Chinese dynastic histories, the Kök Türks, Tiele, and Uighurs, all of whom are Turkic-speaking groups, are mostly classified as being of Xiongnu origin,15.... 16 However, medieval Chinese historians also ascribe the origin of the Kök Türks to the obscure Suo state located to the north of the Xiongnu, 17 or to the mixed barbarians (Za hu) of the Pingliang (in present-day Gansu Province).18 The Tiele (Gaoche) are also recorded as the remnants of the Chidi, a pre-Xiongnu northern tribe, in the Weishu [Wei History].19 Furthermore, even the Khitan and the Qay are classified as being of Xiongnu origin in some Chinese dynastic histories.20 Not surprisingly, the Xin Tangshu even associates the Shiwei, who are considered the progenitors of the Mongols, with the Turkic Dingling (Tiele) tribe.21 The medieval Chinese practice of not differentiating between Turkic and nonTurkic tribes is also reflected in the use of the term Tatar (Dada) as a collective term denoting the nomads of the Mongolian steppes on the eve of the Mongol conquests. p. 105 - The Historical Meaning of the Term Turk and the Nature of the Turkic Identity of the Chinggisid and Timurid Elites in Post-Mongol Central Asia

"In line with the Inner Asian practice of reserving the term Turk for the Kök Türks, medieval Chinese historians also employed the term Turk (Tujue in Chinese) only for the Kök Türks and called other Turkic-speaking tribes such as the Tiele, Uighurs, and Qirghiz by their own names in the official Chinese dynastic histories.10" p. 104 - The Historical Meaning of the Term Turk and the Nature of the Turkic Identity of the Chinggisid and Timurid Elites in Post-Mongol Central Asia

Also, I stumbled upon a source by Peter B. Golden, which demonstrates that even the origins of the Turks are not certain either. Other akin sources can probably be found in Wikipedia;

"This ethnonym derives from the name of an earlier specific grouping of Turkic peoples, the Türk, or Türküt in the plural, a people who make their formal appearance on the stage of history in the sixth century C.E. Turkicspeaking peoples appear before then, in particular in the western steppe-lands of Central Eurasia (= Ponto-Caspian zone), whither they had migrated in the aftermath of the breakup of the Asian Hun/Hsiung-nu union and in connection with the various tribal dislocations that accompanied the formation of the Asian Avar or Jou-jan Empire in Mongolia (early fifth – mid-sixth century)." p. 136 - Some Thoughts on the Origins of the Turks and the Shaping of the Turkic Peoples (Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World)

"it is only with the advent of the Oghuric Turkic groupings into the Ponto-Caspian steppes in the 460s that we have firm evidence for Turkic-speaking peoples." pp. 136-137 - Some Thoughts on the Origins of the Turks and the Shaping of the Turkic Peoples (Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World)

"I mention the T’ieh-lê and their various outcroppings because they became an important component of the early Türk state. It also gives us an idea of the distribution of the Turkic peoples in the era prior to the establishment of a state that would unite most, if not all, of the Turkic peoples. Pulleyblank places the Ting-ling/T’iehlê, Qïrghïz, Hsin-li (Sir), and Hu-chieh “north and west of the Hsiung-nu/ Xiongnu in the general area where we find the Kirghiz at the beginning of Tang” (1990, 106). Where did they come from? What is the Turkic Urheimat? What are the origins of the Turks? The questions are not easily answered." p. 138 - - "Some Thoughts on the Origins of the Turks and the Shaping of the Turkic Peoples (Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World)"

But yes, I am one who is "acting towards my personal opinion instead of improving the page". I've already told you multiple times, and which very easily can be seen in the Xiongnu article, their origins are disputed. That means Xiongnu = not Turkic, because that is disputed in scholarship. This whole page should be rewritten with (properly cited) English WP:RS or deleted. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction with the article "Turkic peoples"

Can someone explain where exactly is contradicting with "Turkic peoples"? I am asking that so we could improve the page towards WP:POV. BerkBerk68^talk 23:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Read the above discussion: Talk:Turkic history#Problematic article. This article looks like a copy-paste of the original article from Turkish WP. For example, why this article is full of Turkish maps?! They are not useful for English readers. Plus all of those maps try to push the very same stuff: Hunnic peoples = Turkic peoples. I think @Ermenrich, Erminwin, and Kansas Bear: can improve and De-POV this article. --Mann Mann (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The entire "Turkic history" article needs to be moved to a sandbox/draft space. It is rife with cherry-picked information, distortions, and glaring historical inaccuracies. @Ermenrich, Erminwin, and HistoryofIran: --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree Erminwin (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Also agreed.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen for your opinions. I think we all know HistoryofIran's opinion, judging from what they have written above.--Kansas Bear (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes sorry, I also agree. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

 Disagree Page is clearly at its best chance to be developed, it was open to public as a low quality for months and it wouldn't make sense to move to draft page right now. We are closer than ever to turn the page into a high quality article. BerkBerk68^talk 20:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Really? The Xiong-nu should not even be mentioned in this article(violates WP:DUE), the Gok-Turks are misrepresented as being from Xiong-nu when the source clearly states different theories(!), the Ghaznavids were NOT the first Turkic entity in Afghanistan, and where is the Armenian Genocide? And I see zero sources for your yearly listings.

• "We are closer than ever to turn the page into a high quality article."

Only if you have zero knowledge of history, Islamic history and Turkic history! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Pannonian Avars, WP:DUE

Huns, WP:DUE

Hephthalites, WP:DUE

Rouran Khaganate, WP:DUE

Tuobas, WP:DUE --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of the Turkic tribes being elements of Xiongnu Tribal Confederation doesn't mean Xiongnu is Turkic. I have explained this at least 5 times. Also may I ask any reference that is directly refusing that Göktürk Tribes were not descendants of Xiongnu? "Xiongnu is a Mongolian state by its structure" does not mean "Göktürk tribes were not included in Xiongnu state". I must offer you empathizing with other editors before insulting their knowledge. BerkBerk68^talk 21:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• "I must offer you empathizing with other editors before insulting their knowledge."

You should try writing what sources state instead of writing what you think is factual, since you are misrepresenting numerous sources in this article.

• "Most of the Turkic tribes being elements of Xiongnu Tribal Confederation doesn't mean Xiongnu is Turkic. I have explained this at least 5 times. Also may I ask any reference that is directly refusing that Göktürk Tribes were not descendants of Xiongnu? "Xiongnu is a Mongolian state by its structure" does not mean "Göktürk tribes were not included in Xiongnu state"."

I would suggest re-reading WP:DUE, while you present the Xiong-nu as Turkic in this article. Per WP:UNDUE, the Xiong-nu should not be continued to be mentioned time and again as if they are Turkic(which is exactly what you are doing). I will not continue to explain in detail(like HistoryofIran) how your sources contradict what you have written, nor will I "explain it at least 5 times" as you continue your POV pushing. Everything in this article will be referenced or it will be removed. That also goes for the Pannonian Avars, Huns, Hephthalites, Rouran Khaganate and the Tuoba. Either you remove this information or I will! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

My point here is not even related with them, you can delete informations related with the nations you've mentioned. Could you please tell me where exactly is the "contradictory parts" of my references? BerkBerk68^talk 21:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"However, medieval Chinese historians also ascribe the origin of the Kök Türks to the obscure Suo state located to the north of the Xiongnu, or to the mixed barbarians (Za hu) of the Pingliang (in present-day Gansu Province)." --Joo-Yup Lee, page 105.

You were told this by HistoryofIran on 13 July. "Moreover, I checked the Lee, Joo-Yup; Kuang, Shuntu (2017) source (whose specific page(s) you havent cited either), and it seems you have taken information out of context.." So you have known this for 3 days.

This is evidence of source misrepresentation. "Most of the Göktürk Tribes were descendants of Xiongnu Empire.."[Joo-Yup Lee page not given.] --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Shuntu reference is already deleted, so there is no point of discussing that. I will fix the other reference related to Göktürk tribes' origins. BerkBerk68^talk 22:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Xiong-nu should not be mentioned and the Ashina clans origins are disputed(per the source). --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This article also seems to have a identity crisis. It is called "Turkic history", but the vast majority of its content is a timeline of "Turkic history". Perhaps a move to "Timeline of Turkic history" would be more appropriate? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Some WP:RS would be beneficial. "1093: Kipchaks' decisive defeat of the Russians" ???(fyi, no mention of 1093 in Kipchaks article) Sadly, this is just the tip of the iceberg. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

So where are the Cumans?(rhetorical question) Yet again, another reason why this should just be moved to a draft space and reworked. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Calendrical timeline

I believe that calendrical informations should be moved under another article called "Timeline of Turkic history". BerkBerk68^talk 16:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm moving it since @User:HistoryofIran also suggested it above. BerkBerk68^talk 16:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@BerkBerk68: Wait, I misunderstood [1]. You actually want to have both Turkic history and Timeline of Turkic history as articles? That was not what was proposed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't matter. I believe that "Timeline of Turkic history" is a necessity because that format is used together with their main articles (for example [2] with [3], [4] with [5], and [6] with [7]), so it would be helpful for encyclopedia system. BerkBerk68^talk 18:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zenzyyx is the translator of the calendrical informations, I believe that we should take his ideas on new article creation. BerkBerk68^talk 18:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed that you added your POV interpretation of history in this article as well [8]. For example, the Timurid Empire article says that it was 'Persianiate Turco-Mongol', yet you added 'Timurids were Persianate Turkic empire' here. You were literally told about this a few hours ago on the Timurid Empire talk page [9]. You just couldn't resist, huh? I'm tired of constantly having to remind you of our guidelines. It seems like having one WP:TENDENTIOUS article isn't enough, so you want both Turkic history and Timeline of Turkic history. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah I haven't notice that on the talk page, You can just fix that, and I don't think reverting article to its inappropriate version especially without consensus really makes sense. BerkBerk68^talk 18:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that, and it still doesn't change the fact that you made it differ from the article due to not being able to keep a neutral opinion once more. The Timurid one was just an example, there is also the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, as well as the Huns and Xiongnu which you were literally told and explained not to add in this very talk page. I think you've been given enough chances, I'm reporting you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, HistoryofIran, please do not revert the entirety of the edit made by BerkBerk68. If there is something you disagree with in the article, talk about it on the talk page, and if the majority of people agree with you, go ahead with said change. Reverting the whole edit made by BerkBerk68 - which is admittedly much more detailed than the previous version - is not how disagreements within an article should be solved. Thank you. zenzyyx_ (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, its rv without consensus, version written in language suitable for wikipedia should stay. You should rather fixing the problem than deleting whole version of the article, whole version is written by one person it ofcourse could contain problems. @HistoryofIran BerkBerk68^talk 18:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

There's no such thing 'as rv without consensus'. You're the one who has to reach WP:CONSENSUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

‎You don't have right to do this. Create Calendirical Turkic History page if you wanna see calendirical part. Fix problematic parts, don't delete article with full of sources* Belugan (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I revert the edit and you two appear at the exact same time, interesting. I do have the 'rights', read WP:CONSENSUS. In case you haven't noticed, everything has been discussed here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Do not continue edit warring. If there are parts of the article you disagree with, or sources you believe to be unreliable (which you will have to prove), present your concerns here in the talk page. Previous concerns stated in the talk page have been addressed by BerkBerk68's edit, which contains many reliable sources proving what is being said. You cannot revert a 50,000 byte edit just because you believe that a POV is pushed forward in a particular section in the article. Again, refrain from edit warring, or you will have to be reported. Thank you. zenzyyx_ (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's not how it works. Per WP:ONUS: “The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” Feel free to report me, I am already creating a report for two here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Again, some/most/many may see said disputed content as something which isn't/can't be disputed. The *entire* edit made by BerkBerk68 is NOT disputed nor POV. A particular section may be viewed as POV by some. Therefore, if you believe there's something in the article which is disputed heavily in the academic field and by scholars, voice your concerns in the talk page, and if the majority of people agree with you and a consensus is reached in the matter, you can then amend said disputed section.

Edit warring is not the way. If you attempt to revert the edit made by BerkBerk68, your edit will be continued to be reverted until significant consensus is reached on the matter in the talk page. zenzyyx_ (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Read the guidelines instead of making your own. Disputed means disputed. It's interesting how passionate both you and Belugan are in supporting BerkBerk's addition right off the bat, even at the same time. Did you read his additions that quickly too? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran If you have disputes about certain sections of the article, feel free to talk about it on the talk page. I read most of his additions, especially the Timurid section you are concerned about. If there is something you disagree with on the section (which is sourced adequately), then talk about it here. Reverting the entire edit just because you disagree with what is written in a single section is not how Wikipedia works. Stress your concerns here, and if most agree with you, amends can be made to that single section. Thanks. zenzyyx_ (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I've already made several concerns, so did the other users before hand up above. Perhaps you might want to address them instead of edit warring and copy-pasting the same comment. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran The months-old concerns of other users were addressed with the introduction of reliable sources by BerkBerk68 in the new edit. If you and some others are disputing the reliability of said sources, I will keep repeating this, stress your concerns in the talk page instead of edit warring. zenzyyx_ (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

How so? Care to explain? Why was the Xiougnu and Huns added, when opposal was made against it by 4 users? Why is the information regarding, for example, the Timurids, different than its main article? If you can't answer, and continue this behaviour, then you will get reported to ANI as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you to check Turkic peoples article, also Xiongnu and Huns are rewritten with strong references that is not same with calendrical informations you wanted to delete. If you have problems with the article, you should discuss it at talk page instead of deleting whole version of article. BerkBerk68^talk 19:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Concerns were already made by 4 users, and thus mention of the Xiougnu and Huns were ultimately removed. But you don't care. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran

It isn't pushed forward by the edit that the Huns and the Xiongnu were Turkic. Instead, BerkBerk68 states that Chinese Han sources *CLAIMED* that the Xiongnu spoke a proto-turkic language ("It was even claimed in Chinese Han records that the Xiongnu spoke a Proto-Turkic language"), and also provides the opinions of other scholars;

"It is also a popular thought among scholars that Xiongnu is most likely to be a confederation of different ethnic and linguistic groups"

The concern here has been addressed. Nothing is definitively pushed forward and multiple ideas of scholars have been presented.

Now onto the Hun section;

"Hunnic armies led by Attila, who had conquered most of Europe, *MAY* have been at least partially of Turkic and Xiongnu origin.

• "Huns were ALSO considered as Proto-Mongolic and/or Yeniseian by some scholars*"

Again, multiple viewpoints stated, nothing definitively pushed. No concerns to be held here.

However, I'm not biased. I will side with you on your concern with the Timurids part, and amend the section and state that the Timurid Empire was a "Persianate Turkic-Mongol" Empire, instead of "Persianate-Turkic" Empire, as it is written in the original article. This is your greatest concern from what I've seen, and I am siding with you SOLELY on this part. zenzyyx_ (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You're just repeating the previous arguments of BerkBerk, which was opposed by the very 4 users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I haven't seen the previous arguments of BerkBerk, but if he has stated exactly what I have, he is not wrong.

• THIS IS A NEW EDIT*

Thus, the previous concerns are no longer valid as the previous article is completely different, claims of differing scholars are sourced with new & reliable sources, and it is no longer pushed forward that the Xiongnu and Huns were Turkic. zenzyyx_ (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You haven't even seen the previous discussions yet you are dismissing them? They are still very relevant, feel free to adress them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran The previous arguments are months-old, I have read them. The additions are exactly what is written in the main articles of the Huns and Xiongnu - that the origins of both people's are disputed, and that scholars state they COULD be Turkic. Nowhere is it claimed that they ARE Turkic. And this is further stressed by the inclusion of differing opinions on the origins of both peoples from many different scholars. The article is no longer biased like it was before (the previous edit was a carbon copy of the Turkish article. There's bound to be bias, and thus concerns were raised in the talk page. This has been eliminated with the new edit, though).

If I was biased, I wouldn't have changed the Timurid section. Come on now. zenzyyx_ (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Months old? They were literally from this month, scroll up. 4 users opposed additions of the Xiougnu and Huns, because their origins are disputed, no matter how you spin it. You are still repeating BerkBerk68's arguments, which was rejected. And the Timurids issue is just one of many. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Then go fix them, open a new section in talk page for them and debate with users, don't delete the whole article. Thats literally how Wikipedia works. BerkBerk68^talk 08:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Fix it yourself, its not my job to constantly clean up after you. Instead of constantly trying to make up your own rules, perhaps read and follow the ones that actually exist. HistoryofIran (talk)

You are reverting without consensus and three different users tell you to stop. What we have right now is a pretty much major edit that completely changed whole article, so its natural how editors that are interested in this page tell their opinions. Also you are asking him if he read the whole article, and I'm asking you, did you read the whole article to revert all of it? BerkBerk68^talk 19:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, there is no such thing as 'reverting without consensus.' Read WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. Anyhow, I've already reported you, so it don't really matter. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You must read these policies too WP:JDLI. Write the problems and we will make solutions. That is how Wikipedia works. He tried to fix article but you try to undermine his fixations. Belugan (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I literally explained why, so how is it WP:JDLI? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

High quality book relevant for this topic

This book by Joo-Yup Lee, which will be published in late July this year, will probably be very relevant for this and related articles: [10]. Joo-Yup Lee generally has quite a number of high quality works on Turkic peoples, their origins and history. Some I have recently read:[11], [12], and [13]. Perhaps I may find time for this topics in some weeks, in the meantime it may help others. Wikiuser1314 (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)