Talk:Tuvans

[Untitled]
Quote: " uvans are also recognized as an ethnic minority in China."

Comment: I'm not so sure about that. The Tuvans aren't one of the 56 nationalities of China. It is not government-recognized that way. And if one speak of "recognized by some fellow Chinese", I don't know how NPOV that can be. --Menchi 21:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I did some checking and Tuvans in China are actually included under the Mongol nationality. --Abstakt 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

History
I'm going to start adding to the history section little by little. Some things won't be fleshed out until I'm done. Well see how it goes... --Stacey Doljack Borsody 00:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese rule
From Tuva: It established itself as a khanate in the fifteenth century until 1757 when it was brought under Chinese Manchu rule to 1911. Andreas  (T) 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That statement seems wrong. Tuva was part of the Dzungarian Empire until 1755 according to my sources. That hardly makes it a separate khanate. I'm not currently familiar with what is written in that Tuva article, but I don't agree that the sections should be merged. The history section in this article should regard the history of the Tuvan people, not the history of Tuva. At a later date I think I should visit what is written in the Tuva article. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like the creation of Tuva as a khanate in the Tuva article happened here . The previous version of the article seems more correct.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The information that is missing in this section is 1757 [...] it was brought under Chinese Manchu rule. This is implrtant for the readers of the novel "Das geraubte Kind" (The robbed infant) by Galsan Tschinag, plotted at the time just before the beginning of Chinese rule. Andreas (T) 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's actually a lot missing. It will all get added eventually, although the flavor of my writing will continue to focus on the history of the people, not the state. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, the two are connected, so the two history sections should be coordinated in some way. As they are now, the Tuvan article treats the early history, while at Tuva, the history of the state starts basically with the 1860 Chinese-Russian treaty. That's fine as long as the two articles agree where they overlap, and there are links to reference one to the other. I am just an interested reader, so I cannot contribute, sorry.  Andreas  (T) 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Tuvans were definitely subjects of the Qing Empire. Their lands were known in documents of the Qing era as 唐努烏梁海 Tángnǔ Wūliánghǎi, which I believe is normally romanized as Tannu Uryankhai. Ebizur 00:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, the government of the Republic of China (i.e., the KMT-led regime that is currently the de facto ruler of Taiwan) has still not officially rescinded its claim of dominion over the Uryankhai (Tuvans) and their lands. The territory of the Tuvans, Mongols, and Buryats is technically still "Chinese territory" according to RoC documents. Ebizur 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Population stats
Somehow I don't think the numbers given for Tsengel Tuvans are right. Example http://www.bjreview.com.cn/nation/txt/2006-12/09/content_50337.htm says "There are about 200,000 Tuvans worldwide, with 30,000 living in Mongolia and the rest mainly in the Republic of Tuva, which is part of the Russia." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sborsody (talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Uriankhai
Uriankhai are Mongol speaking Tuvans out of the Tuvans area (Bayan-Ölgii, Khovd). Bogomolov.PL 11:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be a good idea to place a dismabiguation instead of a redirect? AFAIK the Uriankhai in Khovsgol aren't all Tuvans either. Yaan 09:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages are meant for articles with the same name. For example, if you had two different articles called Uriankhai (region) and Uriankhai (people).  A better solution would be to move some of the info about the Uriankhai name in this article into Uriankhai and drop the disambiguation part.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all Infobox Ethnic group infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Shaman image


I have inserted a shaman image into Religion section. It was a former lead image of the Shamanism article (now moved into a section about revitalization efforts). The lack of details known about the image was a problem. Among the few certain things: the image is rather recent. Later (= just now) I have found an image in Hoppál 2005: 117 that looks similar. If this similarity proves to be real, than probably our Kyzyl shamn image illustrates a Tuvan shaman, possibly member of a revitalization organization called "Düngür" (= "shaman drum"), run in the Tuvan capital Kyzyl. Similar features: headdress (feathers, hanging pearls); tools on the table (candle, [oil] lamp, stick).

The title means “Shamans in Eurasia”, the book is published also in German, Estonian and Finnish. Site of publisher with short description on the book (in Hungarian).

Physis (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tuvans are a sub tribe of Mongol peoples
I think that Tuvans are a sub tribes of Mongol peoples, Maybe their language is more related Turkic languages. But their life style, religion, culture and history tell us that they are only related to Mongols. Until 1930s Tuva (Urainkhai) was a part of Mongolia. Then Russia made it separate from Mongolia and got it a part of Russia. After that Russian scientists always separate it from Mongols. It is just reason that they are called as Turkic.


 * Did you happen to read the article? I won't disagree with you on the Mongol influence on Tuva, but not all of Tuvans come from Mongols.  Tuva was not a part of Mongolia until after 1200.  Prior to that it was part of the Uyghur Khanate.  Moreover, read this: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/11/y-chromosomes-of-south-siberians.html --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your point. But there were various nomadic empires of Altaic nations such as Xiongnu, the Rouran, the Xianbei, the Gökturks, and Great Mongol Empire. Most of them moved to the west. The land including Tuva was a part of all them. My second consideration is The Secret History of the Mongols. In the book Oirats was not called as different nation or people. Even though Khidans were called as different people, however they were close relative to Mongols at that time. And also there is an interesting record in The Secret History of the Mongols that ancestors of Hamag Monggol (main Mongol tribe before Mongol empire and father of Genghis Khan was their leader) came from west side of lake Baikal to central and eastern Mongolia. Therefore I can't agree Tuva is only Turkic. Then I think Tuva is more close to Mongols than Turks. The facts tell us that Tuva is Mongol-Turkic tribe at least.

I'm an uriankhai. I know my ancestors of my 7 generations (more than 300 years). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bileg (talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * User CanadianLinuxUser deleted the last edit:

[]: "The name means "uria" (motto, war motto) in Mongolian language.Mongols applied Mongolian Uriankhai name to all tribes of Forest People. This name has been applied to Tuvans later. In Mongolia there are peoples also known by this name but the Altai Uriankhais are not Tuvans because their clan name are different. There are almost no Turkic especially Samoyedic clan among the Altai Uriankhais and they were one of Darligin Mongols. The Tuvan language contains many Mongol words (30%-40%?)". I need to clarify something : 1.There is no (almost) Turkic and Samoyedic clan among the Altai Uriankhai, Mongolian scientists never say that Altai Uriankhai clans are Turkic or Samoyedic 2. The name "Uriankhai" is Mongol word and Uriankhai were Darligin Mongols. 182.160.6.197 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Turkic language of Tuvans
This edit made by User:KherlenBorjigin replaced the relevant information of the turkic language of Tuvans with nonrelevant (as without any sources) about "Turko-Mongol language". As all relevant sources are supporting the turkic Tuvan language, so Tuvans are formally Turkic people. Cultural presence of Tuvans in the common with Mongols cultural/geographical/religious/economical/historical tradition does not decide with the Tuvan language origins. Tuvans are on a edge of Turkic and Mongol languages areas, but their language is definitely Turkic linguistically. Culture of Tuvans is very close to the Mongolian neighbours, but this fact we need separate from linguistic family definition.

Private opinions of a wikipedian are nonrelevant in the article - can we find scientific sources describing Tuvan language as "Turko-Mongol language" not as definiton of Altaic languages? Is it possible to ignore Turkic origins of Tuvans? Even if we have a different opinion in this question - a lot of relevant sources are calling Tuvans as Turkic people. This fact (presence of this scientific opinion) we must describe in the article. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the other photo?
Where did the Tuvan family photo go? I didn't even notice it was removed! --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But it was removed, possible copyright problems, I guess. I've added a better one with a Tuvan singer. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd guess copyright problems too, but it would be nice if there were some method by which people who are watching a page where the image is in use get notified somehow of possible deletion. What we should do is come up with some portraits of notable Tuvans for this page like the other people pages have.  Need to go look if there's any guidelines for that.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure with this kind of guidelines. And the main problem will be a lack of notable persons images, I see. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe we can mitigate that main problem. We just need to form a list of notable persons we'd like to have in the infobox.  The names that spring immediately to mind are: Salchak Toka, Sherig-ool Oorzhak, Sergey Shoygu, Maxim Munzuk, Kenin Lopsan-Mongush, Kaigal-ool Khovalyg, and Kongar-ol Ondar.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tuvans. 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 tag to http://www.tuvaonline.ru/eng/?subaction=showfull&id=1169292081&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310231205/http://macroevolution.narod.ru/zaharov_indians.htm to http://macroevolution.narod.ru/zaharov_indians.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.tuvaonline.ru/eng/?subaction=showfull&id=1169292081&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310231205/http://macroevolution.narod.ru/zaharov_indians.htm to http://macroevolution.narod.ru/zaharov_indians.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114024659/http://www.ewpnet.com/tuvados.htm to http://www.ewpnet.com/tuvados.htm

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) 22:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep your pseudo-Turkology elsewhere
Minority Rights Group International is as reliable as you can get. There are countless genetic studies. Shut up and keep your jingoist ideology elsewhere. Sherwilliam (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In bad faith, you accuse me of pseudo-Turklogy (which is funny because I'm not the one calling them Turks) when in fact you're pushing a Mongol nationalist narrative. I've been interested in this subject for 20 years now and helped write the majority of this article originally, as you can see from my past comments on this talk page.  I'm well aware of the biases in this discussion and I'm also well aware of the contributions Mongols had to Tuvans.  Calling them anything but their own ethnic group is pushing a bias.  Tuvans are their own ethnic group.  If anything, they're Turkified Samoyeds - the majority of their population shows a native substratum and the Mongol input is actually rather low.  Mongol influence was far more cultural and political than to say Tuvans are Turkified Mongols.


 * The plain fact is your source is bad. It doesn't cite it's claims and just repeats old beliefs derived from humanities.  I don't care who Minority Rights Group International is.  They are not scientists who actually study Tuvans.


 * Here's an example of a higher quality source. Y-DNA haplogroups of Tuvinian tribes show little effect of the Mongol expansion
 * "With a view to trace the Mongol expansion in Tuvinian gene pool we studied two largest Tuvinian clans – those in which, according to data of humanities, one could expect the highest Central Asian ancestry, connected with the Mongol expansion.


 * It could be therefore assumed that Tuvinian clans Mongush and Oorzhak originated from autochtonous people (supposedly, from the local Samoyed and Kets substrata). The minor component of Central Asian haplogroups in the gene pool of these clans allowed to suppose that Mongol expansion did not have a significant influence upon the Tuvinan gene pool at a whole.


 * In Tuvinian clans under the study, hg C2 frequency is rather low – 19 % in Mongush and 11 % in Oorzhak, while in Mongols it makes up almost two thirds of the entire gene pool an comprises different genetic lines "

--Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's another source for you (and other countless genetic studies - it helps to actually know what you're talking about before accusing someone of being jingoistic): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19689942/ "Principal component analysis, multi-dimensional scaling analysis and further phylogenetic tree analysis revealed that the Xinjiang Tuvinians were far separated from Mongolians and Kazakh. Based on these results, we proposed that Xinjiang Tuvinians are genetically distinct from Mongolians and Kazakh. " --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok. I can agree with your edits. The way I used "Mongol" was more of "East Asian characteristics" and not just Mongolian. They are of course Siberian people. I assume that's what

MRG meant in their article. The problem is we occasionally have a lot Turkologists simply claiming everyone speaking Turkish as Turks. I have seen edit wars waged over so many articles including even Genghis Khan. Anyway, sorry about that. Sherwilliam (talk) 19:44, 15 July 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) 21:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * East-Hem 800ad.jpg