m Signing comment by 195.174.23.184 - "→Image:Turkic languages.png: " |
134.105.224.142 (talk) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Turks size == |
|||
I must say that these ugly short-tiny dick mongoloid people became very successful despite their short penis like all other mongoloid people, Were proto-turks obesessed with their tiny size penis and wanted to invade the lands of the indo-iranians (Aryan) because these mongolian turkic people were jealous of indo-iranians (Aryans) bigger penis. |
|||
{{talkheaderlong}} |
{{talkheaderlong}} |
||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
||
Line 6: | Line 12: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{werdnabot|age=150|showheader=no}} |
{{werdnabot|age=150|showheader=no}} |
||
== Image:Turkic languages.png == |
== Image:Turkic languages.png == |
||
[[Image:Turkic languages.png|right|thumb]] |
[[Image:Turkic languages.png|right|thumb]] |
Revision as of 09:54, 21 January 2009
Turks size
I must say that these ugly short-tiny dick mongoloid people became very successful despite their short penis like all other mongoloid people, Were proto-turks obesessed with their tiny size penis and wanted to invade the lands of the indo-iranians (Aryan) because these mongolian turkic people were jealous of indo-iranians (Aryans) bigger penis.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Image:Turkic languages.png
Entire turkey is coloured yellow, probably because the majority are turkic people, but the kurds aren't turkic I think. For a more accurate map it's probably best to adjust the image with only the turkic inhabitants of turkey coloured yellow. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion above Talk:Turkic_peoples#Maps_need_fixing. E104421 (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I read it. This article is about Turkic peoples, not Turkic languages. The yellow map can be added to the Turkic languages article, but since Kurds are not a Turkic people, they should not be listed as such in the map. Khoikhoi 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
As already explained in the discussion above, these regions are not reserved only to the Kurds. Turks, Arabs, Asyriyans, Zazas and of course Kurds are living in that region. I recommend you to re-read the above dıscussion. Regards. E104421 (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- So you admit that the region is not 100% Turkish. However, the map gives the appearance that it is. This is inaccurate. I have cited my sources, now it is up to you to cite yours. Khoikhoi 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Is it a requirement to have 100% Turkish speakers in every area? Are there not any Turkish speakers in these areas? I do no know who is making these maps and certainly it is hard to paint an exact linguistic map but the agenda of those trying to paint the linguistic map of Turkey differently is too obvious. Why are there only two small dots in Bulgaria? Turkish speakers are distributed in a much wider area and are 10% of the population. Would you like to correct that too? Iran also needs a little more coloring.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- My point is that the yellow map gives the appearance that Turks form the majority in southeast Turkey, when we have other maps (even ones on Wikipedia such as the one at Iranian languages) that directly contradict this. As for Bulgaria, I'm guessing that the map could be based off this one. Here's a map of ethnic groups in Iran. Khoikhoi 19:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, out of all the people that you mention (Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Assyrians, Zazas), only one of them are a Turkic people. That means if you include the Assyrians, Arabs, and Zazas on the map, they would not be yellow or turquoise or whatever color Turkic peoples are labed as. Khoikhoi 19:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm with E104421 on this one. There is no place in Turkey where Turkish is not spoken. That other languages are spoken side by side with it, perhaps even by local majorities, is irrelevant from the perspective of this map. The map is meant to show where Turkic languages exist, not where they exist exclusively. I find it pretty obvious that countries where a Turkic language is the sole official language should be included in full. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- As I said in my edit summary [1], there should be no double standards . In Iran the same phenomenon is true :"There is no place in Iran where Persian is not spoken. That other languages are spoken side by side with it, perhaps even by local majorities, is irrelevant from the perspective of this map." Then why should we consider the official language as the determining point for map in Turkey , and in Iran , the local language must be considered as the point ?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm with E104421 on this one. There is no place in Turkey where Turkish is not spoken. That other languages are spoken side by side with it, perhaps even by local majorities, is irrelevant from the perspective of this map. The map is meant to show where Turkic languages exist, not where they exist exclusively. I find it pretty obvious that countries where a Turkic language is the sole official language should be included in full. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- As I stated previously, this article is about Turkic peoples, not the Turkic languages. I would agree with you if it were about the latter. But just because many Kurds speak Turkish as a second or first language or whatever, does not change their ethnicity. They are not a Turkic people regardless of what language they speak. Khoikhoi 19:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- For Future Perfect at Sunrise: Considering the official language in the motherland plus the unofficial language in other countries for drawing maps in Wikipedia is a new concept. Neither in Iranian language map , nor in other others (e.g : Slavac ,Russian and etc ) that has been not the routine .That can be a new way of drawing such maps , but it may have footnotes to show that's an especial one --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- To Alborz: I'm not sure what you mean. The Russian language map you point do does just what I said it should: It shows the whole of Russia as Russian-speaking, although there are of course numerous local non-Russian languages within that territory. The Iranian map is a bit different, but that's due to the fact that it doesn't just show the extent of all Iranian languages together (like the Turkic map does), but attempts to go into a lot more detail about the various local varieties. - To Khoikhoi: The map is about languages, not ethnicities. I have no opinions about how you would treat ethnicities cartographically. In fact, I profess I have not the slightest idea what the concept of "Turkic peoples" is supposed to refer to in the first place. The whole premise that there should be such a thing, different from the linguistic facts, seems quite bizarre to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- For Future Perfect at Sunrise: Considering the official language in the motherland plus the unofficial language in other countries for drawing maps in Wikipedia is a new concept. Neither in Iranian language map , nor in other others (e.g : Slavac ,Russian and etc ) that has been not the routine .That can be a new way of drawing such maps , but it may have footnotes to show that's an especial one --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- As I stated previously, this article is about Turkic peoples, not the Turkic languages. I would agree with you if it were about the latter. But just because many Kurds speak Turkish as a second or first language or whatever, does not change their ethnicity. They are not a Turkic people regardless of what language they speak. Khoikhoi 19:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fut.Perf.: if I start learning Turkmen, and become fluent in it, does that make me a Turk? Perhaps a new map should be made showing only Turkic peoples, as opposed to a map of the Turkic languages. But Kurds who speak Turkish are not automatically transformed into Turks by doing so. Ethnicity has a great dealt to do with self-designation - someone can identify as a Kurd yet not be able to speak a word of Kurdish. Khoikhoi 00:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for late reply. I'd like to quote the first (leading) sentence of the Turkic peoples article: "The Turkic peoples are Eurasian peoples residing in northern, central and western Eurasia who speak languages belonging to the Turkic language family." In fact, this is the only definition. You may narrow down the definition by adding "native" to that sentence, but in any case this does not change the fact that there are Turkic peoples living in the south-eastern part of Turkey. For this reason, i'm in favor of reverting the image. Regards. E104421 (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- According to the Britannica article on Turkic peoples: They are historically and linguistically connected with the T’u-chüeh, the name given by the Chinese to the nomadic people who in the 6th century ad founded an empire stretching from Mongolia and the northern frontier of China to the Black Sea. Are Kurds "historically and linguistically connected with the T’u-chüeh"? The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy calls them "A linguistically and culturally distinct people". Now on the subject of Turkic peoples living in southeastern Turkey, no one is denying that Turks live there, but here is another quote you might like: The majority of those killed have been from among Turkey's ethnic Kurdish minority, who form the majority in the southeastern region. ([2]). Khoikhoi 06:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- As you've just stated "no one is denying that Turks live there". The map just shows where the Turkic peoples live. The current map is misleading. Regards. E104421 (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Look at the upper-left corner of this map for example. You can see that although the map shows Turks living in southeastern Anatolia, the main group there are Kurds. If we're going to give an accurate ethnic map of Turkic peoples, let's not give readers the false impression that Turks form the majority in southeastern Anatolia. Khoikhoi 03:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not giving any false impression, the map also shows European countries where the number of Turks quite lower than the southern-estern of Turkey. Your map gives an impression as if there is no Turks living in that region. Regards. E104421 (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- In southeastern Turkey, Kurds form the majority in the rural areas ([3]). Turks in southeastern Turkey mainly live in the urban areas. So to paint both the rural and urban areas as Turkish would be inaccurate. Here's an example, an ethnic map of Austria-Hungary: [4]. Around this time, Romanians were the majority in the rural areas in Transylvania while Hungarians predominated most of the cities. Yet you don't see the author trying to give the appearance that Transylvania was totally Hungarian. Khoikhoi 19:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your recent example seems to be irrelevant to the case in southeastern Turkey. As i already stated several times above, nobody denies that Turks, Kurds, Zazas, Arabs, Assriyans, ... living in that region. There are many different ethnicities in Turkey. The map just shows where Turkic peoples live, it does not state that Turkic-speaking peoples have the majority in all these regions. For example, the map shows Germany, Bulgaria, Greece, ... There is no such claim. There is nothing wrong in using that picture in the Turkic peoples article. For the Turkic topics template, the map is even more appropriate, since Turkic topics also coves Turkic languages. The map of distribution of Turkic languages is quite informative for that template. For this reason, i put a caption under the map in Turkic peoples article, in order to make you happy, by emphasizing the "Turkic-speaking". Regards. E104421 (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Zazas, Arabs, and Assyrians aren't Turkic peoples either, so they wouldn't count as such on the map. Turks also live in Germany, but if Germany was on the map would we color all of Germany yellow or turquoise? I don't understand this logic. Note here in an ethnic map of the Caucasus, Kurds are shown in dark green since they are the majority in this part of Turkey, while you can see Turks marked with a capital "T". It's not the other way around. That's how ethnic maps work. Khoikhoi 05:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is not an ethnic map. It just shows where it's more likely to find a Turkic people. That's it. E104421 (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but the image substituted seems to have some rather obvious errors.. The Scythian 17:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Turks live all the Turkic people countries. These countries also have citicens from another country, but they're ethnik groups( like Kurds, Arab's in Turkey) and in the map, those country must be full yellow in the map. Türkiye(ömerlili) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.56.112 (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
kurds are not Turkic. i prefer green map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.23.184 (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Section Mythology
The section on Mythology seems to be miserable ! In fact , the mythology of the Turkic peoples that spoke Turkic languages , is not alike and almost no element is common between Iranian Azeri and the central Asian Turkic language people .Neither Turks of Turkey , nor Azeris of Iran and Az.Rep have ever practiced Tengriism and other Shamanistic religions as it is written in this sentence :"Tengriism and other Shamanistic religions had been the dominant religion for most of history"! Zend-Avesta , never talks about the Turks and talks about Turanians that where not Turkic but Indo-European language .Tengriism is not a monotheistic religion.Epic of King Gesar is not relevant to any Turkish Mythology and that is Tibetan.Almost no Muslim (scholar or not scholar) , believes that sura 108 of the Quran (Al-Kawthar) has any connection to Tibetan Geser and Togarmah in the Bible has nothing to do with the Turks .
I think the whole section needs a major edit .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Tatars
There are more than 10 million Tatars, and removing them from the page is inexcusable revisionism, Nonsenseshame. Also, you appear to be engaging in an edit war rather than a discussion. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 21:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. The Scythian 07:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but just 7 millions, don't try to exagerate with number. I once in the past, when I was not registered, added Tatars to top of this page, but it had been reverted of course. So there is no reason that now whouldn't be so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.193.217 (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
new problem: destroying the turkic roots by idiots
why do racist people in here always attack turks. wikipedia should use filters for those pple.--195.174.9.35 (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Please take it to the talk page" means "please engage in discussion regarding the issues". If you have something to say - which you must, considering the reversions you've been doing - say it. Just saying the word "RACISM" doesn't count as explanation/discussion/etc. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 14:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit War???
- What exactly is this edit war over again?!? I forgot... The Scythian 16:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Err... why did you RV my edits when both you and I were stopping the vandal IP-hopper from reverting constructive edits? ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 20:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good question...I think I got alittle confused a bit. I'll just, ah, step aside now, and tittle my thumbs for awhile... The Scythian 04:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Citation
The citation of scholars supporting a Uralic-Altaic linkage is in the very article you cite noted as wikipedia:Fringe. [5] "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is." We should cover notable fringe theories: the article you cite notes it as "the Turanist conspiracy theory". ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 11:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Yoruks.jpg
The image Image:Yoruks.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)