Talk:Altaic peoples

Image copyright problem with File:Kul Tigin.jpg
The image File:Kul Tigin.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 Media copyright questions. --17:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

merged
Since there is no such thing as "Altaic people", aside from the projection of linguistic constructs onto history, or as a shortcut for the academic to group foreign peoples (that is, since there's no ethnic component to this supposedly ethnic article), I've merged the sections into the articles on actual ethno-linguistic groups. kwami (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't see this before. The term is widely used in literature, and considering that there are other Wikipedia articles on linguistic constructs, such as Proto-Indo-Europeans and Austronesian peoples, I don't see any reason why it should be redirected. I reworded some of the changes you made, and I hope you're not in disagreement with them. Cydevil38 (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's fine, though calling it a 'hypothesis' is overdoing it. There's quite a bit of evidence, just not quite enough to convince everyone. (Their history is hypothetical, but that's true for IE as well.) kwami (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the only info not found in the languages article was a list of modern peoples that have nothing to do with each other. I moved that over to the languages article. kwami (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)