Template talk:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Timurid Empire[edit]

Where is Timurid Empire? please add it. Einsatzgruppen 00:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

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]

Scyths, Huns and Avars[edit]

Where are Scyths, Huns and Avars? Scyth, Xiongnu, Hunnic, Hepthalite and Avar are missing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMr KnG (talk • contribs) 18:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scyths, Xiongnu and Hunnic empires[edit]

Britannica write that Scythian member of a nomadic people originally of Iranian stock. Xiongnu and Hunnic empires were not a Turkic empire. See Xiongnu and Huns articles. --Qara Khan 15:29, 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]

Turkic empires which used Persian Culture[edit]

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 improved Persian culture. Different excamples:

1. Most population of the Yuan Dynasty were Han Chinese and official language of the dynasty was Chinese but Yuan emperors were Mongol

2. Most population of the Ayyubid Dynasty were Arabs and official language of the dynasty was Arabic but Ayyubid rulers were Kurdish

3. Most population of the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum were Turk, Greek and Armenian but official language of the sultanate was Persian

4. Offical language of France was Latin until 1539 (See Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts)

5. Offical language of England was Norman-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)

I was already source presented. You said non-Turkic and improved Persian culture states about all historians say Turkic state. And no, means that they were Turkic. None improved Persian Culture, vice versa improved Turkic Culture. For example Timurid improved Turkic culture, but even Timurid improved Persain Culture sayed. You are Turkic states Persian state say know, all Turkic states was not Turkic state a description be doing their utmost to make. Also I say this to states gave an examples; Ayyubid rulers were Turk, Azerbaijani Turks and official language of Ayyubid was Arabic, but language of dynasty and people (at least a part) was Turkic. The official language of Seljuq was Persian, but language of dynasty and people was Turkic. So obvious propaganda is done. 78.160.106.243 (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no consensus for any changes to be done to the template. Continued reverts by this IP will garner the attention of an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP78(ie.EMr KnG) edits are pushing a singular theory. Whereas for example, Xiongnu lists multiple theories as to their origins. This is typical nationalistic nonsense, to push one singular POV, giving undue weight to one theory. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia page not shown as the source. And just not a theory. All historians agree that the Huns were Turk. But English Wikipedia is runs contrary to all scientific findings. 78.160.123.145 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion means nothing here and your nationalistic POV is original research. Xiongnu origins has multiple references that you don't like[1]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only my personal opinion. At the same time all historians opinion. 85.99.73.235 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for the content dispute[edit]

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:

Non-Turkic or multiple theories-based dynasties/empires such as

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. Read WP:SOAP and WP:NOT.

Turko-Persians such as

Solution: I don't think adding of them is a problem. They are related to both Turkic peoples (rulers) and Persian 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]

Scythians and Huns were Turk is a not thesis. All historians agree Huns were Turk. In the case of Scythians were Turk, most historians agree. As to this Turko-Persian; All you wrotes non Turko-Persian, were direct Turk. Weren't in Persian culture and language. Take it all in order. Selcuq rulers were Turk, culture were Turkic culture, the majority of people Turk, official language was Persian but language of rulers and people was Turkic. Khwarazmian ruler were Turk, culture were Turkic culture, the majority of people Turk, official language was Turkic and Persian, and language of rulers and people was Turkic. Ghaznavid rulers were Turk, culture were Turkic culture, the majority of people Turk, official language was Persian but language of rulers and people was Turkic. Also firs be edit template, later on be edit article. 95.5.28.65 (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. All historians? These are just your personal claims and not what experts say. We use scholary and reliable sources. Your claims are just your POV. You are not familiar with this topic and Wikipedia policies. Even you don't know anything about these dynasties/people and just want to Turkify them. Read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Your edits are fringe and unreliable content. If you continue to remove sourced texts/reliable sources and insert your POVs, You will be blocked (even if you use multiple IPs). Your comments and other editor's comments are here. So it's better for you to respect other editors and try to be a collaborative editor. Wikipedia is not a battleground, war zone, forum, or personal blog. Me and many other editors don't care if a specific dynasty was Turkic, Persian, Arab, Mongol, Japanese, Chinese, European, or etc. Only reliable and scholary source/citation does matter not anything on the web or other medias.
You should learn many things about Wikipedia. Read WP:HERE and specially the section WP:NOTHERE. All of your sources/claims are not reliable and acceptable. Anyway, If you don't agree with me and other editors, go and ask about your sources on here: WP:RSN. If any of your sources is accepted as reliable, you can add them to the articles but DO NOT try to do such things like: removing other sources, massive blanking, inserting POV, replacing reliable sources/sourced content with unreliable materials/POVs, edit warring, and etc.
Everything is clear and instead of writing forum-like comments, provide your sources on here or WP:RSN. Also it's better to use "your" Wikipedia account. This section is obvious enough. After expiration of the article protection, The important thing is your talks on here. As you see your edits are reverted on this revision, So if you continue edit warring and reverting without reaching consensus on here, All of your edits will be reported to the admins and related admins' noticeboards. Zheek (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Zheek. Hephthalite Empire,Huns, Scythians and Xiongnu have numerous theories considering their origins. Their addition to the Template gives undue weight to one theory. The IPs silly claims of all historians is clearly proven false by my link to Xiongnu article.
The second part concerning Turko-Persian needs clarification.
Turko-Persian is a culture not an ethnicity. The dynasties listed in conjunction are Turkic/Turkish ethnically, but were Persianate(ie.Turko-Persian) in culture. This is a documented fact. No amount of ignorance, grandiose statements of "all historians" or well wishing will change that.
Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Khwarazmian dynasty and Sultanate of Rum are all ethnic Turks. This is supported by references and there are no other theories as to their ethnic origins. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Also all of these articles are well-sourced and every editor can verify them. Usually Origin section or lead section explains everything (scholary and experts' views). Zheek (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zheek, I know history better than you, you can be sure. I very know the rules of Wikipedia. And Already I used scholarly and reliable sources. Important is what experts say, no matter say editors.
Kansas Bear, You talked like know a lot, but you don't know nothing. You told me No amount of ignorance, grandiose statements of "all historians" or well wishing will change that., but yourself told This is a documented fact. 85.99.73.235 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing said by the IP hopping editor that refutes anything I have said. As for, "I know history better than you, you can be sure..... And Already I used scholarly and reliable sources. Important is what experts say, no matter say editors". Then you know what cherry picking information is. Since you are clearly ignoring information that states what you do not want to read and simply using information you want. This is cherry picking and giving undue weight to a singular POV. Therefore, since you said, "I very know the rules of Wikipedia", then you know your attempt to push this singular POV is a violation of neutral point of view. I see no evidence submitted by the IP that refutes the sourced information in the, Hephthalite Empire,Huns, Scythians and Xiongnu articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing you're saying makes no sense. You know it, but not to suit one's interests. 85.99.73.235 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zheek, unless the IP hopping editor presents some viable reason(s) by tomorrow(24th), we should call consensus and move on. So far the IP editor(ie. EMr KnG) has presented nothing but outlandish claims of "all historians"(which is refuted by the references in the articles in question) and now nonsensical English. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Kansas Bear. We've waited for his/her reasons, but nothing happened. I will refer to this consensus in the future "IF" edit war/same edits happens. Page protection will expire on 31 March. I think every necessary thing is discussed on here. Every editor and admins can verify those articles and compare them with IPs' edits. Zheek (talk) 08:07, 24 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]

Edit request on 21 March 2013[edit]

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]

Request[edit]

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.129.32 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 with Turkic, and the scope of this template covers Turkic history, not History of Turkey. Turk primarily refers to "a native or inhabitant of Turkey, or a person of Turkish 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]

Definition of Turk

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 khan 07:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not read? "When words have more than one meaning, Wikipedia should be specific to avoid confusion and to be more correct." This template is confusing, given the template Template:Turks. This is not their history. This is about Turkic peoples, not Turkish people. Cavann (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Turkic is a name invented by the lisguists to differentiate the Turks of the World and the Turks of Turkey. Nevertheless, the original form is Turk as can be seen in the oldest written documents namely Khöshöö Tsaidam inscriptions. There is no reason to replace the original name with the invented one. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; "Turkic" is a more neutral and less ambiguous label, which is also used by a variety of impeccably reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All Turks are Turkic, not all Turkic peoples are Turks. As the template seems to be used for peoples who aren't Turks, but are Turkic, the proposed move makes perfect sense. Jeppiz (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with Cavann, Bobrayner, and Jeppiz. Per sources and articles of this template, it's a better and more relevant name for this template. Also the term "Turk" maybe considered as same as "Turkish" by some readers or editors. "Turkic" is more acceptable for this template. Matches with linked articles and those Turkic topics. Zheek (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Turk and Turkish isn't the same. Turk is ethnicity (Azerbaijani turks, Turkey turks, Iraqi turks, all turks .) but Turkish is nationality (a person from Turkey). Qara khan 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Turkish is also an ethnicity: [4]
From CIA The World Factbook: Ethnic groups in Turkey, "Turkish 70-75%, Kurdish 18%, other minorities 7-12% (2008 est.)" [5]
Also: Turkish, adj. and n.: "a. Of, pertaining or belonging to the Turks or to Turkey; commonly (now Hist.) = Ottoman." (Oxford English Dictionary) Cavann (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recognise Qara khan's objection to "Turkish", but this proposed move doesn't involve the word "Turkish". "Turkic" isn't the same. It is, however, used in a similar way to Qara khan's examples of how "Turk" is used. Alas, "Turk" is ambiguous - it is more frequently used in the modern nationalist sense - and the move would fix that ambiguity. bobrayner (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Turkey

MADDE 66- Türk Devletine vatandaşlık bağı ile bağlı olan herkes Türktür.

ARTICLE 66- Everyone bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship is a Turkish.

Result: Turk and Turkish aren't the same. Qara Khan 19:58, 09 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that constitution article is using the word "Turk." In any case, legal vs. ethnic definitions needs to be discussed in Turkish people article and it is, actually, included. See also Germans, where legal and ethnic definitions may not always be in line.
The correct translation, which undermines your argument, is here: Turkish nationality law Cavann (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above translation is correct. Please don't speak a lie. Qara Khan 15:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish/Turk are the same thing (i.e., "Türk") in Turkish when it comes to people. Again, the correct translation is in Turkish nationality law. Cavann (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ugly view[edit]

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 khan 16:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your version uses three times as much code, and has a piece missing on the right. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

add more!![edit]

can someone add all turkic empires and dynasties look on list of turkic dynasties and countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmeett21 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avars[edit]

It hasn´t been proven that Avars were turkish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.179.105 (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuman-Kipchak confederation[edit]

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 the vast 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 the Kipchaks and Cumans were originally two separate peoples...The Cumans must 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...the final result is indisputable: two Turkic confederacies, the Kipchaks and the Cumans, 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 close to each other, have become a single ethnic group after Cuman-Kipchak federation 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]

"Cuman-Kipchak" confederation-Cumania. ---Qara Arslan Khan 19:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User: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]

New Headline[edit]

Dougweller, If you knew a little information about Medieval History you would not do this.

1. Mongol Empire was not a Turkic Empire.

2. The Yenisei Kirghiz were an ancient Turkic people not a state or dynasty.

3. Eldiguzids (Ildenizids) and Salghurids - Look at bottom of the template (Other Turkic dynasties). I just removed repetition.

P.S. This template is about pre-14th century Turkic History, so i have removed Ottomans, Aq Qoyunlu, Khanates of the Caucasus etc. Thank you. --Qara Khan 18:55, 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 think Other category is unnecessary. And Yenisei Kirghiz is in List of Turkic dynasties and countries article. 83.66.219.62 (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

missing many dynasties in the list look on List of Turkic dynasties and countries.

Huns are missing![edit]

Should be added Huns to the History 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]

Per the Huns article, I see nothing that would indicate their inclusion in this template. See here, where a previous IP was unable to support his grandiose claims. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Xiongnu is in the Mongolic 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]

Mehmeett21! You're very very funny. Do you think editors and admins are idiot?! Stop this IP game. This is first and last warning for you. --188.158.95.245 (talk) 16:55, 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) Removed Yueban. Read Talk:List_of_Turkic_dynasties_and_countries#Latest_version — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toghuchar (talk • contribs) 03:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected[edit]

I have fully protected the template for one week because of the edit 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 reach consensus through discussion on this page. If that turns out to be impossible, I can only recommend dispute 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 | talk 15:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Template:History of Turkıc Peoples[edit]

Redirected Template:History of Turkıc Peoples to this page. Toghuchar (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring IP[edit]

Perhaps the edit warring IP would care to explain why they insist on adding two empires that clearly did not exist pre-14th century! Just some educational information for the IP, 14th century. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the Rasulid dynasty[edit]

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 provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Badly in need of a restructure[edit]

This template is badly in need of a restructure. Currently it takes up way too much space when added into articles. Compare Template:History of Georgia (country) and Template:History of Iran for example. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: Compacting  Done. Let's keep an eye on it... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Representing photo[edit]

Hello, @पाटलिपुत्र. I am glad you from your revision. I want to hear your opinion 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 a diverse range of physical characteristics due to the vast geographical and historical contexts in which they reside.

Origin of these proto ancestors is unknown. Modern definition is collection of diverse ethnic groups speaking a Turkic language as our Wikipedia Turkic peoples page suggests. Ethnic group encompasses a wide array of individuals who live across a significant region, including Central Asia, Western Asia, the Caucasus, and parts of Eastern Europe. This diverse population exhibits various physical traits that cannot be simplified into a single racial category.

It's alright if you reconsider using the current picture. However, I would like to insist on recommending a representation that better reflects the Eastern Eurasian type. The modern majority of Turkic peoples, such as the Turkmens, 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 the Qocho Uygurs during the Mongol 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 is unknown and the majority of Turkic peoples lived outside that specific region, and considering the heavily corrupted state of the mural, I prefer to keep the current version. However, I am open to discussing the possibility of replacing it with high-quality representation pics of other Turkic groups such as the Cuman-Kipchaks, Volga Bulgars, Oghuzes, Pechenegs, Qarluks (ancestors of Qocho Uygurs), and others. Representative pictures of these groups were extensively documented by both themselves and their neighboring communities.

With my best regards.

Akatziri (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Akatziri: The Turks becoming multi-ethnic is essentially a later phenomenon. Genetic analysis of the Göktürks (particularly the recent analysis of the remains of Empress Ashina) have found nearly exclusive Ancient Northeast Asian ancestry (97,7%) with a minor West-Eurasian component [10]. That said, the problem with the Byzantine image is that it is obviously generic and lacks descriptive value (like most of the images of Mongols from Europe at the time): unfortunately it has low informational value. Better to use images that can be assumed to be more faithful to some early Turkic types, such as the Beshbalik. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:History_of_the_Turkic_peoples_pre-14th_century&oldid=1159474575"