Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bulgars

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dulovokil146 (talk | contribs) at 15:53, 28 April 2016 (Undid revision 717585455 by Cplakidas (talk) Do not remove other editors' remarks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:53, 28 April 2016 by Dulovokil146 (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 717585455 by Cplakidas (talk) Do not remove other editors' remarks)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bulgars article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Good articlesBulgars was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 16, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRussia: History / Demographics & ethnography High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBulgaria High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRomania
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on July 15, 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Template:Findnotice

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bulgars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 23:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments on GA criteria

Pass
  • Article has an appropriate reference section. I see that the citation style changed from long to short in May of this year during a single edit. For future editing it's worth noting that changing citation style in an existing article is generally discouraged per WP:CITEVAR. The edit also changed appropriate usage of {{Reflist}} to depreciated usage. See Template:Reflist for current guidance. A number of editors are still not aware of all changes. Just noting here for future editing. I get caught out on changes to guidance as well! SilkTork 00:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Query
  • There's been some very recent edit warring, which if it continues would prevent the article being listed. My general approach in such situations is to extend the review rather than close it, to see if common sense can prevail. If someone deliberately disrupts an article during a GAN in order to prevent an article being listed, they can be banned from the article. I would not expect nominators or significant contributors to get involved in edit warring. If there are concerns about an edit other than obvious vandalism, rather than revert, the edit should be discussed on the talk page. SilkTork 00:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I discussed and hope for months for the common sense to prevail, but as can be seen on the Bulgars and some related articles, and recently on Bulgar language, as well noticeboard archive, it seems that the editor does not accept and understand that Misplaced Pages is edited according to NPOV principles. It was proposed a dispute resolution, but currently have no will and time to write an adequate resolution (with all the claims by the editor in question).--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • File:53-manasses-chronicle.jpg is tagged as needing attention. That should be dealt with before the review is completed or another image used in its place. I am uncertain as to why it has been chosen as the lead image to represent Bulgars. I cannot find details about the incident mentioned in the article. Indeed, there isn't much history in the article after the 7th century, which I will mention again when dealing with Broad coverage. SilkTork 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Before I rewrote the article the old revision had a map as the lead image. I was not fond of the image quality and that it only represents a certain date in time, and (with dubious extent) geographical location in their broader migration. I searched for an image wich could properly give, somehow strong, impression of the Bulgars. First used the image of the alleged Kubrat's sword (revision, web), but it was deleted due to copyright. There's not so good selection of images (categories at Wikimedia Commons Bulgars, Medieval architecture in Bulgaria, Monarchs of Bulgaria). I thought about to use an image of their 'capitals' Pliska and Veliki Preslav, or Bolghar, but they are generally not in the original shape, yet reconstructed in the recent two centuries. Thus decided for a medieval drawing, of which, found this most representative of the Bulgars army (seen in their outfit, wearing a Eastern type of helmet, similar to Sarmatian Spangenhelm). The image is part of the Constantine Manasses Chronicle, and needs better licence tag. Will see what can be done. Why the battle is not mentioned in the article will be commented below in "Broad coverage".--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, is it alright?--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The copyright tag is now sorted. SilkTork 20:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The information is in both Bulgarian and English, but barely legible. There's none. Indeed, it seems they are tangra-bg.org book publisher. It now raises the question of whether it is his own work. The user Jingiby account on Misplaced Pages is blocked since 2014, but hopefully on Wikimedia Commons Jingiby is still active. There will ask him about the image.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
There's still no answer from him, but I think that the image copyright is quite suspicious. I can remove it, and when we finish the text, will work on how to make a similar one.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This image was also uploaded by Jingiby, and it looks like no one until now noted this issue, although is fairly used. It is atributed to Ivan Dobrev, Bulgarian academician and linguist. Think it cannot be found anymore on the website of the Bulgarian Military Academy. However, it can be easly replaced by the File:A jug with golden medallions.jpg.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Done.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Fail
  • Broad coverage. There are images in the article which refer to events which are not mentioned in the text. The history mainly stops in the 7th century, though the images reveal that significant events in the Bulgars history occurred after that date. Unless there is a significant reason why the history after the 7th century is not mentioned, this article appears to be incomplete. SilkTork 20:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but I conceived is so to be historically concise ie. it exclusively mentions the history of the semi-nomadic Bulgars until the time of the 'five brothers' in 7th century ie. migrations with which they finally settled down. What happened with the Bulgars ruled by Batbayan there's no information, probably attended and disappeared somewhere in the historical events of the region. What happened with those led by Kotrag to the river Volga can be further read on the respective articles (Volga Bulgaria). The fate of the Bulgars led by Kuber (Macedonia) and Alcek (Italy) is similar to those ruled by Batbayan. The Bulgars led by Asparukh are the most known as were the founders of the Bulgarian nation. However, at want point of time should be distinguished the history of Bulgars from the history of Bulgarians. I think is - the disappearance of the culture and language, and original ruling elite influence. In the book by F. Curta, The The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, 2008, pg. 151 is written "since 1930... the tendency has been to distinguish between Bulgars (before the conversion to Christianity) and Bulgarians (after the conversion)".
When the Bulgars came to the territory of today's Bulgaria they encountered the native population of Slavs and Greeks (roughly to say). Since then we can follow the genesis and development of the Bulgarian nation. The Bulgars from today's ie. medieval Bulgarians differed in language, religious beliefs, traditional customs, social structure, but again who - at least the warrior elite or ruling class. How much they numbered, that's a hard question. According Jean W Sedlar (2011, pg. 424) "The Bulgar ruling class eventually abandoned its Turkic language and adopted Slavic so completely that no trace of Turkic speech patterns can be found in any Old Slavic texts... The 9th and 10th centuries marked an interval of bilingualism, after which the descendants of the original Bulgar conquerors gradually forgot their original Turkic vernacular and became entirely Slavic in speech. By the 12th century the proto-Bulgar language had utterly died out...". Since the Christianisation in 865 is followed gradual disappearance of their original beliefs and customs.
Although the source by Golden (1992) I mostly used for history did further venture into Bulgarians and Volga Bulgaria, I didn't see any point to simply copy the historical facts from other related articles, ie. why not to be included in related articles? The article is already big, and to further expand it in history section with historical facts already mentioned in related articles (like First Bulgarian Empire), with debatable time period until when to follow the term Bulgars... Actually, through the sections "Social structure", "Religion", "Language", "Ethnicity", even "Etymology" - are mentioned few dates, and can be comprehend who they really were, what characterized them, and when no longer. I think this is the most important part of the article.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Britannica covers a longer period. Encyclopedia of European Peoples covers a longer period. This children's encyclopedia covers a longer period. The sources used in the article cover a longer period. I see that the Bulgars divided at the time of the five brothers, but sources continue the history after the split. The distribution of the Bulgars appears to be part of the story, as it is with articles on other such peoples who dispersed, such as Celts and Jews. As this article is about the Bulgars it should cover their entire history. If you wish to write only about the early period of the Bulgars, that could be a separate article, perhaps called Early Bulgars. SilkTork 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
There's no need for new article. In the "Subsequent migrations" is noted that they merged with the other regional population, in "Society" that accepted their lifestyle, in "Religion" differences in type of burial cemeteries, and in "Language" that gradually slavicized. The ruling elite managed to preserve their identity for about 200 years, and that's around the time of Christianization (865 AD). This time period, of at least 200 years, must be mentioned, and since the scholars usually follow the history of Bulgarians from 865 AD, will name the succeeding section as "Bulgarian Empires", where will be mentioned the history of the First and Second Bulgarian Empire. The short history, few statements, about Volga Bulgars will add to the "Subsequent migrations" respective paragraph.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
After changes, what is your current opinion on the article, what else would like to be done, beside copyedit?--Crovata (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Mos - Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork 20:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It can be fairly easly done, and needs better one. I see that some interesting things, eg. religion and language aren't mentioned.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, but when see the intro of article on Huns believe only partially. Is it too concise or needs better prose?--Crovata (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The prose is difficult to follow in places with uncertain paragraphing - there are too many short paragraphs which inhibits reading flow, and makes it more difficult to absorb meaning because of the lack of organised structuring. The Turkic migration section is particularly difficult to absorb. Clear, readable prose which allows the general reader to understand the topic without undue effort would be what to aim for. This looks like a collection of facts - notes toward an article. The next step would be to write up those facts in an organised and readable manner. SilkTork 21:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
In which parts found the reading difficult, except "Turkic migration"? The respective section was written so because each paragraph is about different date, event or source, more or less related. I thought the more concise, if can with original quote, the better as more interpretation of such distant events will lead to more confusion. Thing is, if recall right and see in notes, there isn't really any other historical fact, besides (F. Curta, Avar Blitzkrieg, Slavic and Bulgar raiders, and Roman Special Ops, 2015) for some raids in 499, 502, 507, 530, 535 AD, and scholar consideration, besides (Uwe Fiedler, Bulgars in the lower Danube region, in F. Curta, The The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, 2008).--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The language is difficult in most places, and is full of errors, such that it would normally be considered a quick fail. Example: "Golden considered the origin of the Kutrigurs and Utigurs obscure and their relationship to the Onoğurs and Bulgars who lived in the same region, or in its vicinity, as unclear. He noted the assumption of the two tribes being related to the Šarağurs (Oğhur. šara, "White Oğhurs"), and that according Procopius there were two Hunnic tribal unions of Cimmerians descent and common origin. The reason later Byzantine sources frequent linked the names Onoğurs and Bulgars is also unclear." Two of the errors in that I can parse ("according Procopius" should be "according to Procopius"; "sources frequent linked" should be "sources frequently linked" others I can't work out, so the meaning is lost, such as "Cimmerians descent and common origin". The article would benefit from a copyedit by someone with a good command of English, and who knows the topic well - but it would only be worth doing that, when the article's structure and the topic range is better established. SilkTork 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not native English speaker and this minor faults tend not to notice. Agree, when will finish the new section and lead will make you notice to decide. Should the previous copyedit reviewer Folklore1 be called? We could say that at least he got familiar with the article.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The article would benefit from a strong and very experienced copyeditor. One I respect highly is User:Eric Corbett. If you could convince him to get involved I would have more confidence that this article could be brought to GA level. If he does take on the task, I would ask that you allow him to work unhindered - he works fast, making many changes, and this can unnerve some people. SilkTork 08:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Initially Eric Corbett accepted and done several edits, but decided to withdraw.--Crovata (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I don't know who else to suggest. The article needs more than a simple copy edit, it needs a complete rewrite to make the issues clearer - Eric Corbett could have done that. I can see that you fully understand the topic, and are an appropriate person to bring knowledge to the article; what is needed, however, is someone skilled in communication and with a good command of the English language, who also has an affinity or interest in the topic and is prepared to work with you. Unless you have a solution in mind, I will close this review in the next 24 hours. When the language and clarity issues have been resolved you can nominate again. SilkTork 15:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a solution for which can guarantee instant work and short period of time. It's alright, I agree with the decision. We went through several issues, will see if there's something more to bring, and will make a new migration image. Thank you for your time and am glad to have worked with you. When they are resolved would like to notice you to see if are satisfactory.--Crovata (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'll take a look when you feel the article is ready to be nominated. SilkTork 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

On hold

  • I'm putting this review on hold. There are a number of issues with this article. There is information here, and some presentation of that information, but the article does not yet meet GA criteria. I haven't finished the review, though I have put enough indicators above to show why I feel this article is not ready, and what work needs to be done. I think this is a very big topic, and deserves to be taken seriously, with time taken to do appropriate deep research, and then organise and present the material. Given the current state of the article I don't see that sufficient improvement for such a big and complex topic can be completed in a reasonable time frame. However, I would rather support positive efforts to improve the article and build toward a GA listing, than simply close this GAN as a fail. I will keep the review open for a while to see what the nominator and significant contributors have to say. SilkTork 21:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Closed as unlisted to allow time to resolve issue. SilkTork 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Bogus article

This is a fake article with a lot of problems :


1. Fails to explain who were the Bulgars


2. Fails to explain genetic tests of modern Bulgarians and their relation to the Bulgars


3. Is imposing fake information about genetic research of Central Asian Turkic populations


4. Is hiding information that there is a connection between the Huns and Bulgars


5. Is factually wrong - Bulgars entered Europe in 4th century


6. Is not neutral and in fact is a biased Turkish agenda based on conceptually wrong ideas: 

  A) because there are some similarities between the hypothetical Bulgar language and proto-Turkic language, it concludes that Bulgars were Turks. Language != nationality


7. ls hiding information that the extinct Bulgar language ( and also culture) contained also Mongolian and Iranian elements. Fails to explain why it is so.


8. Fails to explain the etymology and origin of the name Bulgar ( it wasn't Turkic). Instead useless information is pored on the reader in this section of the article with obvious purpose - to obfuscate the truth.


9. Fails to explain the origin of the sky deity Tangra ( it wasn't Turkic) - factually wrong


10. Fails to explain the origin of the title qagan ( it wasn't Turkic) - factually wrong


11. Fails to explain what is the relation of the Bulgars to the Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs and who were they.


12. The article does not refer to broad range of different scholars and basically represents the writings of only one scholar - Peter Golden ( who is Turk despite his English name). If Peter Golden doesn't know who were the Utigurs and Kutrigurs, there are scientists who DO know who were they. The intro section refers more than 10 times to books written by amateurs - business administrators and musicians. This is forbidden by WP rules.


13. Fails to explain the title kana sybigi and its origin.


14. Fails to explain where was found the earliest dated sign |Y|. These archaeological sites are connected to people who were not Turks. The sign is associated with Dulo clan (and not Tangra) - factually wrong information.


15. Fails to explain who were Dulo and Vokil.


16. Fails to explain the state, military and religious organization of the early Bulgar state - factually wrong information about titles as tarkan, bagatur and boila. Biased Turkic intimation that these titles were Turkish - they were not (factually wrong). 


17. Factually wrong information about the Madara Rider (Sasanian rock relief)


18. Random pick up of one of the few sources different from Peter Golden - cited source 126 - there is no such information about 200 years bilingual period on the cited pages 618-619.


19. Factually wrong tricky hints to state that the Bulgars dissolved into the "Slavic sea"(number of Bulgars<<number of Slavs). Genetic tests showed the opposite is true.


Conclusions: The article "Bulgars" is a fake bogus article serving the interest of Turkish propaganda. It is not written according to encyclopedian rules and it is not explaining who were the Bulgars-hence it should be unlocked and rewritten anew by other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.217.110 (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Some remarks on the common origin of the Bulgars and Mexican-Germans (or some tips for Crovata how to write great articles)

GERMANS

Germans (German: Deutsche) were seafarers warrior tribes of Mexican extraction who flourished in the southern Scandinavia during 1-2 centuries AD. Emerging as seafarers warriors in the region of Scandinavia, the British Isles and Ireland, according to some researchers their roots can be traced to Central America. During their eastward migration across the Northern Atlantic the Germans absorbed other ethnic groups and cultural influences, including Viking , Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Indo-European. Modern genetic research on Central American Mexican people and ethnic groups related to the Germans points to an affiliation with western European populations, they share common haplogroup R1b. The Germans spoke a Mexican language, i.e. R-Mexican of the Omturic branch. They preserved military titles, organization and customs of North-Atlantic Ocean, as well as pagan shamanism and belief in the sky deity Jesus. Around 260 AD they breached the the Limes Germanicus establishing the polity of Old Great Germania on the territory northern Brandenburg. Later Germanic tribes lead by the khan Bergelmir conquered what is now Swabia and Bavaria and established the First German Empire. In the central Europe, the Germans became a political and military elite, and merged with previous populations, such as the Sorbs and Veleti and were Germanicized, thus forming modern Germans.

Etymology and Origin The etymology of the ethnonym German is not completely understood and difficult to trace back earlier than the 2nd century AD. It is generally believed to derive from the Mexican alegoman, a common Mexican dish in Central America and North Atlantic, especially Canary islands. The dish is a soft paste made from hard cheese, peppers, olive oil and garlic which undoubtedly proves that Germans belong to the Mexican people.


History The origin of the early Germans is still unclear. Their homeland is believed to be situated in central America and the North Atlantic Islands.


Religion Very little is known about the religion of the early Germans. It is traditionally assumed that the God in question was the Mexican supreme sky deity, Jesus, a Mexican word for the Mexican Christian religion.


Language The origin and language of the Germans has been the subject of debate since around the start of the 18th century. It is generally accepted that at least the German elite spoke R-Mexican, a language that was a member of the Omtur branch of the Mexican language family.


Ethnicity Due to the lack of definitive evidence, modern scholarship uses an ethnogenesis approach in explaining the German origin. More recent theories view the seafarers confederacies, such as the Germans as the formation of several different cultural, political and linguistic entities that could dissolve as quickly as they formed, entailing a process of ethnogenesis.


Anthropology and genetics Genetic and anthropological researches have shown that the tribes of the North Atlantic Ocean and Central America were not always ethnically homogeneous, and were often unions of multiple ethnicities. Recent blood and DNA studies of present-day populations in Central America confirm the extreme genetic heterogeneity. The latest DNA studies on Mexican people in Central America and Western Europe also confirm genetic heterogeneity, indicating that the Mexican tribal confederations included various haplogroups including R1b. A comparative genetic study shows the Germans primarily represented by the Western European Y haplogroups, with 40% belonging to haplogroup R1b. Therefore, this is 100% proof that Germans are Mexican people.

Conclusions Thus modern scholars concluded that intermingling of European population elements with newly arrived Mexican Germanic groups, as the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Germans belonged to the group of Mexican peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.217.110 (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. We also found that a higher proportion of Asian genetic components distinguishes the Turkic speakers all over West Eurasia from their immediate non-Turkic neighbors. Turkic-speaking peoples share varying proportions of Asian ancestry that originate in a single area, southern Siberia and Mongolia. Mongolic- and Turkic-speaking populations from this area bear an unusually high number of long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent with Turkic peoples from across west Eurasia. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068
  2. The analysis of genetic variation reveals that Central Asian diversity is mainly shaped by linguistic affiliation, with Turkic-speaking populations forming a cluster more closely related to East-Asian populations and Indo-Iranian speakers forming a cluster closer to Western Eurasians. http://dienekes.blogspot.bg/2010/09/major-study-of-central-asian.html
  3. the contemporary Turkish population clusters with South European populations, as expected, but also shows signatures of relatively recent contribution from ancestral East Asian populations. ... A number of variants associated with skin color and total cholesterol levels show frequency differentiation between the Turkish populations and European populations http://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-15-963
Categories: