Talk:Göktürks/Archive 2

Turk or Kok Turk
I changed all "Turks" to "Kok Turk"; instead I could change all "Kok Turk"s to "Turks"; they are just synonyms. Historical name is "Turk" but this can be confused with the modern meaning of the word; the article should be written with meticulous care to aviod confusion if "Turks" word is used, otherwise a confusion note is unnecassary. However, you cannot use Turk in one paragraph and Kok Turk in another paragraph, it would not be a good article! Kavas (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But can you use "Göktürks" as article title and then "Kök Türks" in the article itself? It should be one or the other.--Joostik (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good point. It is better if the name used in the article were also the title of the article. Alternative names and spellings are given in the lead, and after that one term is used throughout for internal consistency. It is permissible to use synonyms for variety and readability, but not to change spellings. Göktürks gets 58,500 Ghits, while "Kök Türks" gets only 1,460. "Kök Türks" books - 48 - Göktürks books - 335. It is clear that Göktürks is the common term, and the one most used by scholars. That should be the term used in the article.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They are simply Türks so "Kök Türks" hits only a few. --Shamans of Tengri 16:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Göktürk is not widely used, hence the best scholars in this field do not even call the First and Second Türk Qaghanate with this name (i.e. Golden, Beckwith, etc). Göktürk is not justified simply to distinguish from modern Turkish Turks. It appears once in the inscriptions, which are the basic source for how Türk rulers saw their empire. Golden suggest that it is largely related to "east" not sky or celestial, but of course this could be debated. In any case, the people called themselves Türk consistently. The evidence for Ashina as "blue" is weak, and in any case the whole of the Türk ethnic group or empire is not going to call themselves Blue Türks simply because the Ashina founding clan's name meant "blue." Nlight2 (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Internal revolution
"Internal revolution" is properly referenced. It should be stay in the article. Please do not delete it.--CenkX (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

 * I found CenkX deleted some important information and deformed the article. Especially I don't understand why you insist on using historians feel Maybe you support Sinor's theses. But please don't abuse Neutral point of view. Takabeg (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The map
The second map in section Civil war is not realistic. According to map most of South Siberia as well as Pacific Ocean coast was under the influence of Turks. Is there a source to back this claim ? If not, we may discuss delating it. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Vol. 99. of History of Northern Dynasties,

俟斤又西破嚈噠，東走契丹，北並契骨，威服塞外諸國. 其地，東自遼海以西，至西海，萬里；南自沙漠以北，至北海，五六千里：皆屬焉. 抗衡中國，後與魏伐齊，至並州.

俟斤=Muqan Qaghan defeated Hephthalite (嚈噠) in the west, made Qidan (契骨) run away in the east, moreover Kyrgyz (契骨) in the north and make subservient countries outside the Great Wall (塞外諸國). Its territories extended to 10,000 miles from the Sea of Liao (遼海) in the east to the West Sea (西海) in the west, to 5,600 miles from the northern part of the desert (沙漠) in the south to the North Sea (北海) in the north: all belong to it. It was a match for China and after defeated Northern Qi with Western Wei (precisely Northern Zhou that was the follower of Western Wei) and extended to Bing (並州).


 * Sea of Liao means Bohai Sea, possibly Sea of Japan.
 * West Sea means Aral Sea, possibly Caspian Sea
 * North Sea means Lake Baikal
 * Desert means Gobi Desert

Takabeg (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have no objection about the southern and western territories. They are well documented. But I have doubts about the eastern part. There it seems only one source. But the details in history books produced in medieval and ancient times are not always reliable. Do we believe that the gods were fighting in the battle of Troy ? (Well it is written so) We should also use our logic. Turks were originally from Altai Mountains. They captured Ötüken app. 1500 km east, because the Ötüken forest was considered holy. But Pacific Ocean is about 6000 km. away and  unlike west there was no attractive rewards (no Silk way). I think Turks’ presence or even influence along the Ocean is highly questionabe. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I question the boundary between the two khaghanates. It seems most part of present day Dzungaria was ruled by Western Turkic rather than Eastern Turkic khaganate. --Shamans of Tengri 16:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Zizhi Tongjian

 * Zizhi Tongjian's link doesn't mention about "Tujue's service as ironsmiths". Please check the link again.
 * Suishu doesn't mention about ironsmith services, only says, 'work in metal making' (工於鐵作).

These two points should be clarified before making citations. Thank you!--CenkX (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You deleted sources and information again. The link that you deleted is Sima Guang, Zizhi Tongjian, Vol. 159. and it says that 突厥本西方小國，姓阿史那氏，世居金山之陽，為柔然鐵工. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

：Then the information you gave was wrong, there was no mention of Tujue on Vol.123, as you said, it's vol.159. And there is nothing about "service", it simply says, "metal-work for Rouran". Please be precise.--CenkX (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

鐵工 means blacksmith, ironworker, ironwork. Takabeg (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You deleted vol. 159 and related information, not Vol. 123. We use Vol. 123 for other information. OK ? Takabeg (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not OK. You're distorting information according your personal fictional views, those sources does not mention about them serving to Rouran.--CenkX (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Turks served as ironworkers. Takabeg (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

have served as their "blacksmith slaves" and ironworkers. Takabeg (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

served as ironworkers. Takabeg (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

served as their "blacksmith slaves" and ironworkers. Takabeg (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

They served Jwen-jwen as ironworkers. Takabeg (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

submitted to them and settled as ironworkers. Takabeg (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC) In short many historians accept it and I've never edited by my personal opinion. I don't have any opinion :) I only translate and transfer information. But we can say this your edit was done by your personal view of point. Takabeg (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Need Cleanup
I just took a closer look to the article after years. I realized that last six months while a lot of useful information was discarded, a lot of unfounded information added. So I decided to add cleanup template.--CenkX (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Göktürk or Türk
Why is the name of this article Göktürk (or Köktürk as proposed) ? In both cases the word Gök (or Kök) is a noun used as an adjective in a adjective clause (i.e., Celestial Turk). Usually, in official addresses of the historical states, the name of the state is presented with a lot of adjectives and titles. (Great, sempiternal, holy, honored etc.) But usually these titles don't appear in the article names of the encyclopedias. (These may be given in the text) Even if they appear in the name of the article in a very few cases, the adjective and the noun are not combined (Holy Roman Empire, Great Seljuk Empire etc.) So I think the name of this article should be moved to Turkic Empire or Turkic Khanate. A second choice may be Celestial Turk where the words are not combined. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that the name of the article was driven by native Turks, and then it is tolerable as reflecting the native accepted historiographical views, but otherwise it strikingly stands out from every other article in the WP, where the ruling elite, people, and the political organizations are not piled up in a single cauldron. Ashina Turks were a ruling elite, and they had their own genealogical legends, historical references, background, ethnology, etc. For example, Ashina Turks had hostile relations with a number of Turkic people, who never accepted their supermacy, and in the end brought about their demise. Ashina Turks presided over numerous peoples in Eurasia, from primitive forest foot hunters to most developed irrigation agricultural people, and supervised the most advanced metalurgical production of the time. Their metalurgical legasy lasted into the 20th century, and was a base for the industrial development in the Asian part of the USSR. Politically, they led a number of Middle Age states, each defined by its own history and uniqueness. They also laid a foundation for the ruling concept that was far ahead of its time, making them desirable rulers invited to rule with their know-how in many lands with no Türks. The Göktürk article should address a wealth of information about a sliver of Turkic dynasty that played a magnificient role in the history of Eurasia, trace their propagation and their conflicts with other Turkic dynasties. The history of Turkic peoples is a completely different story, impacted, but not driven by Ashina Turks, and the political history is again a separate story, consisting of dozens individual stories with Göktürk involvement only at some short period. I suggest that there is a need to create a table of contents, as a separate discussion, like in any publication, and then be guided by it in the breakdown and naming of the articles. A separate issue is the absence of the native sources, only Göktürks in the WP is written entirely by outsiders with mostly skewed knowledge and objectives Barefact (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "kök" is definitely a title like "Great", "Heavenly", etc. The Osman Turkish people want to have the primary place among Turkic peoples, so they call themselves simply "Turks", and rename the real Türks (Kök Türks) "Göktürks". The term "Göktürk" itself is a Turkish corruption of Old Turkic/Old Uyghur "Kök Türk". The article should be Türks (kök) (or Türks (ancient people), Türks (blue), Türks (sky), etc.), kök is simply a term to disambiguate them from the ancient Turkmens. --Shamans of Tengri 18:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Name
Göktürk:
 * Göktürk -Llc (1923-2011) 4,510, but this results includes many irrelevant "Göktürk". Camilla Göktürk, Zerri̇n Göktürk, Erek Göktürk, Deniz Göktürk, Şemsettin Sadik Göktürk etc. Because "Göktürk" is one of the modern Turkish surnames. The term "Göktürk" that is explained in this article is nothing but modern Turkish translation.
 * Göktürks -Llc (1923-2011) 280 (minimum 98)
 * "Göktürk Khaganate" -Llc (1800-2011) 3
 * "Göktürk Khanate" -Llc (1923-2011) 6
 * "Göktürk Empire" -Llc (1923-2011) 51 (minimum 30)

Turkic Khaganate (but including other Turkic khaganates/khanates/empires):
 * "Turkic Khaganate" -Llc (1923-2011) 76 (minimum 48)
 * "Turkic Khanate" -Llc 220 (minimum 106)
 * "Turkic Empire" -Llc 780 (minimum 336)

Tujue:
 * Tujue -Llc 2,540 (minimum 379)
 * Turkic Tujue -Llc (1923-2011) 435 (minimum 158)

Kök Türk:
 * "Kök Türk" -Llc (1923-2011) 954 (minimum 220)
 * Turkic "Kök Türk" -Llc (1923-2011) 198 (minimum 56)
 * "Kok Turks" -Llc (1923-2011) 300 (minimum 98)

Takabeg (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Türk:
 * "Türk" -Llc (1923-2011) 58,900--Shamans of Tengri 16:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Modern Mongolian alternative name
Modern Mongolian alternative name is needless. Mongols appeared in 7th century. Shiwei was not in the Mongolian Plateau. This alternative name had no historical value. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"History of Mongolia" Information Box?
I was wondering if it is relevant to put, in the origins section, an information box 'History of Mongolia'. This article is about the history of Turks. We should put 'History of Turks' Information Box instead. Stokastik (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know precise rules on info box. I think this info box can be put here, because the mainland of this khaganate lay in modern Mongolia. can also be put. Takabeg (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Project China ?
I propose to delete the ProjectChina. This article has nothing to do with China. It is true that they were the neighbours of China. But they were also the neighbours of Sasanid Persia and Byzantine Empire. Are we going to include all neighbours? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a part of Project China because Turks were the ancestors of Chinese peoples and their kingdom was an important part of Chinese history. Many of Chinese peoples, such as the ethnic Uyghur, ethnic Uzbek, ethnic Qazaq, ethnic Sariq Uyghur, etc., regard Turks their sole ancestors (Turks were also the ancestor of non-Chinese Uzbeks, Qazaqs, etc in Central Asia, and that the reason why it's a part of Project Central Asia), and most other of them, such as ethnic Han and ethnic Mongol/Tuva, regard Turks one of their ancestors, due to several extensive cultural and lineage interactions since the Wu Hu era. --118.186.196.18 (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I doubt whether the Project Turkey is ok for this article, because the Seljuks didn't appear in the Asia Minor until 11th century, and it's not clear where exactly they came from. They say a language that is somewhat close to the language spoken by the Kok Turks, but with a quite weird pronunciation (e.g. they pronounce Beg as Bey). Project Turkey concerns more with Anatolia, Byzantine, and Seljuk-Ottoman Empires, less with the history of Turkic peoples. So it's definitely not a high-importance article of Project Turkey. --118.186.196.18 (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

So called "Iranian" titles of Göktürk leaders
Political system: Sadly I see that 111.69.225.40 tried to delete text. I think we need more neutral information and two positions to avoid such deletions (NPOV). On the other hand it seems to be persian chauvinism which has to be removed due to out-dated and misleading, wrong information. --Tirgil34 (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2012 (CET)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34 --Cold Season (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong usage of German Citation
This sentence is based on wrong citation:"German Turkologist W.-E. Scharlipp writes that "a conspicuously large amount" of early Turkic titles are "in fact borrowings from Iranian", including "almost all of their titles"."

Everybody who can speak German should comment this. Thanks! -- Xantana (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2012 (CET)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34 --Cold Season (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Name of article
I am a lecturer in premodern Chinese history. When I was looking for this article it took me a while to find it because most of the materials I ask my students to read refer to this group as a political unit known as the First (and later the Second) Turkish or Turkic Empires. I wonder whether it would be worth changing the name of the article to make it easier to search for? Naomi Standen (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Khaganate and Qaghanate
The problem with articles like this is they accumulate multiple transcriptions for terms. So we have ended up with the term Qaghan in the same article with Khaganate. The spelling khagan and khaqan are quite late and come after Islamization and the use of the Arabic script. The early Turkic spelling should be qaghan and qaghanate formed with the English derivative ending on the title of the ruler of these imperial states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlight2 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC) forgot my Nlight2 (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC) as usual!

Requested move

 * 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 Göktürks. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Türks (kök) → Göktürks – Just per WPMOS, the present name looks like a disambig, but those are followed, in English, at the English Wikipedia, with a descriptor in parenthesis that describes for the layperson the topic of the article. "Türks (kök)" does not, nobody uses "kök" in English, whereas the commonly used scholarly term "Göktürks" as a unit is quite common. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support some move. I leave it to the experts to decide a title, but I agree with the nominator that this one stinks. Red Slash 03:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support for procedural reasons (the article was recently unilaterally moved with no discussion or comprehensible explanation), per WP:UE (the current title is meaningless in English), per WP:UCN (use common names), and per WP:DAB (Wikipedia's rules on parenthetical disambiguators). The article has been stable at some form of Göktürks since 2002; let those who favour another title justify it.  —  AjaxSmack   18:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Article moved without any negotiation — Maurice07 (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

German works on Old Turkic inscriptions
Der türkische Text der bilinguelen Inschriften der Mongolei: Erstes Heft: Die Schrift ist eine ... (1900)

https://archive.org/details/dertrkischetext00albegoog

Inscriptions de l'Orkhon déchiffrées (1896)

https://archive.org/details/inscriptionsdel00thomgoog

Über die köktürkische Inschrift auf der Südseite des Kül Takin-Denkmals (1896)

https://archive.org/details/berdiekktr00banguoft

Wörterverzeichniss zu den Inscriptions de l'Iénisseï (1892)

https://archive.org/details/wrterverzeichni00donngoog

Rajmaan (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish work

Orhun abideleri

https://archive.org/details/orhunabideleri00yaziuoft

History of Turks

https://archive.org/details/trktrh00yazi

History of Ottomans

https://archive.org/details/osmnltrh01yazi

https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Yaziksiz%2C+Necib+%27Asim%2C+1861-1935%22

Alleged etymology
GOKTURKS  is a huge mistranslation and mistyping of KOTRAGS over the centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read on the policy on verifiability and against original research. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Göktürks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522200011/http://db1x.sinica.edu.tw/sinocal/ to http://db1x.sinica.edu.tw/sinocal/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522200011/http://db1x.sinica.edu.tw/sinocal/ to http://db1x.sinica.edu.tw/sinocal/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522200011/http://db1x.sinica.edu.tw/sinocal/ to http://db1x.sinica.edu.tw/sinocal/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

origins
this user changes all referenced text and provides nonsense notes. plus he calls me vandal while i just restore the original text188.159.246.87 (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I changed no sourced content, but added a reliable and academic one, and thus corrected/improved a sentence. The only one who removes sourced content and makes false summaries and accusations is you. Where did I call anyone vandal? Show proof. Akocsg (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Ashina origins
I would like a quote from, that states anything about the Ashina.



Text put by
Hunan201p copied a two texts from Ashina tribe, which the factuality of its are obvious. This is not true, this is what Klyashtorni says, from the used source: "The theme of the ‘wolf’ in two of the three Türk legends is shared with the Wu-sun, who preceded the Türk Empire by many centuries. Also shared with the Wu-sun is the theme of the mutilated child abandoned in the wilderness by the enemy. According to the Shih-chi, the Wu-sun ruler K’un-mo was cast out to die when still a baby, but was nourished by birds that brought him meat and by a wolf that suckled him. The story is also related in the Han shu and its close relationship with one of the Türk origin myths is obvious. There is, however, the significant difference that, whereas in the Wu-sun myth the wolf saves the ancestor of the tribe, it is not – as in the case of the Türks – the ancestor of the people. (The connections with Mongol myths, though undeniable, should not concern us here." and "Türk system of beliefs linking at least some sections of the Türk ruling class to the Sogdians and, beyond them, to the Wu-sun who – for all we know – may have been Iranians."
 * Several historians have pointed out that the origin of the Ashina is from the Indo-Aryan Wusun.[42]

"Researchers such as Peter B. Golden,[13] H. W. Haussig,[14] S. G. Klyashtorny,[15][16] A. N. Bernstamm,[17] Carter V. Findley,[18] D.G. Savinov,[19] S. P. Guschin,[20] Rona-Tas[21] and R. N. Frye[22] have pointed out that the origin of the Ashina is from the Indo-Iranian Saka or Wusun.[23]" Let us check one by one:


 * source [13] here "He suggests that it may derive from the Tocharian title arsilanci, stemming, perhaps, from a marital tie of the Türk with the Tocharians of Qocho (Beckwith 1987, 206-208). Shervashidze reads A-shih-na as *Ahsen(a)-sad (< Soghdian: Axsina "blue" + sad, an Iranian title) (1989, 79-80). This Iranian linguistic connection was first put forward by Haussig and Bailey. More recently, Sergei Kliashtornyi has revisisted this theme and, building on the earlier work, suggests that A-shih-na is the transcription of Khotanese-Saka "Asseina/assena "blue" (cf. Soghian *ahsane) or perhaps Tocharian Asna "blue", The Khotanese-Saka form seems closest to "Ashina." This nicely dovetails with the usage "Kök Türk," Blue Türks, found in the Kül Tegin / Bilge Qaghan inscription.


 * source [15] and [19] is not verifiable


 * source [18] Carter V. Findley says: The linguistically non-Turkic name, A-shih-na, probably comesfrom one of the Iranian languages of Central Asia and means “blue,” kök in Turkic, the color identified with the East, so that Kök Türk, another namefor the Türk Empire, meant the “Turks of the East.”"


 * source [20]: “As a result, the incomprehensible“ Sovereign House of Co ”, indicated as the ancestors of the house of Ashin, turns into the“ Saki Land ”somewhere north of the Hun ... those lands where the Pazyryk mounds and the Ukok plateau "[34]," concludes SP Gushchin. taken from here, a pseudo-source. can't find any info who "S P Gushchin" is.


 * source [24] and [42] here it says: "He suggests that it may derive from the Tocharian title arsilanci, stemming, perhaps, from a marital tie of the Türk with the Tocharians of Qocho (Beckwith 1987, 206-208). Shervashidze reads A-shih-na as *Ahsen(a)-sad (< Soghdian: Axsina "blue" + sad, an Iranian title) (1989, 79-80). This Iranian linguistic connection was first put forward by Haussig and Bailey. More recently, Sergei Kliashtornyi has revisisted this theme and, building on the earlier work, suggests that A-shih-na is the transcription of Khotanese-Saka "Asseina/assena "blue" (cf. Soghian *ahsane) or perhaps Tocharian Asna "blue", The Khotanese-Saka form seems closest to "Ashina." This nicely dovetails with the usage "Kök Türk," Blue Türks, found in the Kül Tegin / Bilge Qaghan inscription.

I can not verify Rona Tas's content.
 * source [22], R. N. Frye, here does not even mention Ashina!

Also this does not belongs here but belongs to Ashina tribe. Beshogur (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect or vandalist information about origin
There are some objectionable sources for almost every reality accepted in history. If we add these claims to the content of each text, the result is nothing more than confusion. The paragraph that contains the sentence I continue to delete is "According to the Book of Zhou and History of the Northern Dynasties, the Ashina clan was a component of the Xiongnu confederation, [7] [9] but this is contested. [29]" source 29 is an article called christian. Compared to a history book written on the date mentioned, it has almost no values, I would like you to find it. This resource needs to be deleted Nazarbaevax (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Gokturk cav.jpg

About deleting the lineage image.
I have recently deleted the given image from this article, as it was completely unsourced and I couldn't find anything to verify it. The poorly researched, low-quality image was added a couple of months ago and created by. The image itself claims that all "nomadic peoples" come from a single root by putting them under a tree diagram. Apart from that it puts Uyghur, Turgesh etc. more closely related to Bulgar peoples, which does not make any sense according to historical and linguistic data we have. It is poorly done WP:OR.

Thus, the revert made by is not justified at all. It is definitely not "vandalism" and it's highly inappropriate to even suggest that. Your revert will be reverted back. --Gogolplex (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)