This template is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
@Wario-Man and Kypioys sx:: Would you like to discuss which articles should be linked from this template? I am not an expert on Turkic peoples. I reverted because most links in this version lead to disambiguation pages. Some don't even contain a relevant entry: which Tofa is a Siberian people? About one third of the links do lead to articles and most seem relevant, but others such as Tuba clearly are not. To a layman, the previous version seems much better. Certes (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of Hazaras
@HistoryofIran:, this template lists Turkic peoples. Below of the main list, there's another section called "Others". Origin of Hazaras is unclear, so we cannot add them into main list. The Hazaras wikipage mentions of this debate in the Origins section. Joseph (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section mentions that they're mixed. Still, that does not make them a Turkic, Mongol, or Iranian people unless WP:RS says so. "Others" is vague and can give a false account of what they are - the template is ultimately named "Template:Turkic peoples", which they're not. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Others" mean "Others", and "Related" still gives a false impression considering they have mixed origin of three ethnic groups, especially when the Hazaras don't speak a Turkic language. If there are so many WP:RS, by all means, please cite a WP:RS that says they're an ethnic Turkic group. Two prominent sources; EI3 [1] and Iranica [2] don't support this. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this right.. you want to add the Hazaras, a people who are not an ethnic Turkic group, who is a mix of three different ethnicities (Turkic, Mongol, Iranian), and don't even speak a Turkic language, under "Others/Mixed" in a Template named "Turkic people"..? Let me come with an example so you can get an idea of flawed this sounds. If someone finds a WP:RS that states that Turkish people have some Greek or Anatolian ancestry, do we add them under Template:Greek people or Template:Anatolian peoples? HistoryofIran (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turkic peoples don't generally share similar DNAs. Some regions of Anatolian Turks are closer to Greeks than Sakha Turks. Mughals are also a mixed ethnicity. What I'm saying is, if an ethnicity is related to Turkic people, then we should include it in this template. Maybe we need opinions from other people. Adding recent edditors. @Beshogur:, @Arctic Circle System:, @Elebayev:. Joseph (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an ethnic group should be included unless they are specifically designated as being x ethnic group by WP:RS, and the Hazaras are not designated as a Turkic ethnic group. Just because they have some Turkic blood out of 2 others (Iranian, Mongolian), Joseph for some reason wants them included as a "Turkic peoples". I did present an example of how flawed this logic is on 17:18, 18 September 2024, yet Joseph avoided addressing it. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran You are trying to delete something on every page related to Turks, without exception. I know that the Iranian state has been trying to assimilate Turks for years. Don't bring these hostile thoughts to Wikipedia, we don't want them.
In Wikipedia we use high quality WP:RS. Not random, obscure cherrypicked citations. If you followed this discussion, you would see that they are of mixed origin, something which was never disputed here. Also, do not randomly attack other users again, see WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. This was our first ever interaction (at least with your account. User created in 2021, first started editing this year. Interesting.), and you acted like that. Do better. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Please do not bite the newcomers. You also cast an aspersion in your second-to-last sentence for things that are entirely normal. The sources are also reputable, peer-reviewed academic journals, entirely valid; they just don't say what White Dodecahedron thinks they say. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but its not normal in Middle Eastern related articles, it happens regularly. I highly doubt the sources can be qualifed as high quality, which sources such as EI3 are. I’ll take a closer look when I’m home. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, still not seeing any signs of high quality stuff. Everyone can write "Hazara "Iranian"/"Turkic"/"Mongolian" in Google scholar and pick some random authors. We need high quality sources by leading experts. If these obscure authors are so prominent, then I'm sure English WP:RS will cite them too. Either way, as everyone else was already aware, the Turkic origin of the Hazaras were not even disputed to begin with. And my argument about them [9] still remains unanswered by those who insist that they're a "Turkic people". HistoryofIran (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on why university professors reviewed by entire editorial boards of professors aren't good sources? You seem to believe only English news sources can be cited, which is very much not the case. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to look at an authors credentials/expertise and their standing in the scholarly world (eg how frequently they're cited by other citations). I saw nothing impressive when looking at those cherrypicked citations. Compare Alessandro Monsutti, who has dedicated a huge part of his life in doing research about the topic, having written tons of works [10][11], and having authored both the afromentioned EI3 and partly the Iranica articles about Hazaras. And due to that, being frequently cited by other WP:RS[12]. I'm open to being proved wrong. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any policy basis for those exceptionally high sourcing standards for any inclusion? Or are you just saying that "this much bigger and echoed expert says they're not a Turkic people, therefore per Due and stuff we should defer to it over primary research", which I agree with? Aaron Liu (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also tried to find access to Robert L. Canfield's Hazara integration into the Afghan nation. Some changing relations between Hazaras and Afghan officials, though unfortunately to no avail. Not even a snippet view. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[3] translated says the Hazaras are of Turkish origin, which we don't dispute. However, that doesn't mean they are Turkic people. I couldn't open [4], and with my current limited time, I skipped over 567. [8] seems to expressly imply they aren't Turkic:
In this geography, besides the Turkic tribes such as the Uzbeks, Turkmens, Kyrgyz, and Kazakhs who speak their native languages even today, there are also tribes like the Hazaras, the Aimaqs, and the Galchays
it is rather hard to distinguish the Turkic communities like the Uzbeks, the Kyrgyz, and the Turkmens from the Hazaras in Afghanistan.
Without exception, he does the same thing in the discussion section of every content related to Turks and directly tries to have things deleted. He's using Wikipedia's policies to distort them in order to win.(WP:Point) This account has been committing similar vandalism on Wikipedia for years. His arguments are always the same. "This one is not reliable, I think this one is not reliable, WP:text WP:text WP:text(Irrelevant distorted), this historian is better, we should completely erase the page of Turk history." He's been doing the same thing for years, constantly deleting things for no reason and filling up the talk pages with meaningless posts if someone else stops him.
[3]You probably object because he wrote Turkish instead of Turkic in his English. He uses the word Türk in the Turkish part. The claim is not that they are Anatolian Turks, it is just used as a synonym.
[4]"Turkishness and Hazaras in Afghanistan" I have given the content of the relevant page and the title of the book itself claims this.
[8]Clearly answered below.
"With those who forgot their native languages and those who have not, the Turkic communities constitute approximately 20% of the total population in Afghanistan. While the Turkic communities like the Galchays, the Afshars, the Hazaras, and the Aimaqs forgot their native tongues, the Uzbeks, the Turkmens, the Kyrgyz and the Kazakhs preserved theirs. "
I should also mention this: Turks in Afghanistan suffered a lot of assimilation and ethnic cleansing after the collapse of the Turks states. The culture that is trying to dominate the region is Pashtun, which is an Iranian language. White Dodecahedron (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. However, while HistoryofIran has perhaps been rude, I don't think he has twisted policies to do anything. Plus, the only Wikipedia rule he linked while arguing about content was Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Asking you to read that policy and to not say someone want to disrupt the project according to another page isn't lawyering.[3] No, that's not what I mean. I mean that he said they're of Turkic origin, not that they're a Turkic people [4] I said that Google Books kept bugging out and I couldn't view the relevant pages. [8] is good, but as said above, it's a primary source, which is less reliable than secondary reviews and literature HistoryofIran has found that apparently advocate a different view. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
