Talk:Kazakhs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Large block of text - genetic studies[edit]

This content is textbook WP:UNDUE, as this is not a journal of genetic studies and that is just a very long, mundane, and esoteric list of haplogroups that don't give the reader any more information than the plain explanation given right before it. It's unneeded for this article and the interested readers can refer to the scientific journals where the findings are published. The same editor also has been problematically add "ethnic galleries" despite WP:GALLERY calling for an end to that practice. I feel the long overly detailed paragraph ought to be removed per MOS guidelines as well as the image gallery. JesseRafe (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would be better to move it to Genetic studies on Kazakhs (which is a redirect by now). Finstergeist (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of so called "qazakh armor" and "queen tomiris" photos[edit]

There is a photo near the religions sections that show a Scythian gold armour wrongly labeled as "qazakh armour' and a portrait of Queen Tomiris labeled as "qazakh queen tomoris" as far as i know, the Scyhtians were not Turkic but Eastern Iranic people/speakers and have zero to do with Kazakhs. The portraits i am talking about are these which are also first party photos; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Qazaq_armors_made_out_of_gold.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Qazaq_Queen_Tomiris.jpg

The ancestors of Kazakhs were still in Mongolia when Indo-Europeans were living in Kazakhstan and much of Central Asia so there is no relation here. I propose a deletion of this portion because its obviously inserted by some nationalist with a motive. Can a mod or someone with knowledge here give me the green light so i can remove it? Thanks. Akmal94 (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Kazakhs[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kazakhs's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Damgaard_Conclusion":

  • From Göktürks: Damgaard et al. 2018, pp. 4–5. "We find evidence that elite soldiers associated with the Turkic Khaganate are genetically closer to East Asians... These results suggest that Turkic cultural customs were imposed by an East Asian minority elite onto central steppe nomad populations... The wide distribution of the Turkic languages from Northwest China, Mongolia and Siberia in the east to Turkey and Bulgaria in the west implies large-scale migrations out of the homeland in Mongolia... [T]he genomic history of the Eurasian steppes is the story of a gradual transition from Bronze Age pastoralists of West Eurasian ancestry towards mounted warriors of increased East Asian ancestry..."
  • From Turkic peoples: Damgaard et al. 2018, pp. 4–5. "These results suggest that Turkic cultural customs were imposed by an East Asian minority elite onto central steppe nomad populations... The wide distribution of the Turkic languages from Northwest China, Mongolia and Siberia in the east to Turkey and Bulgaria in the west implies large-scale migrations out of the homeland in Mongolia.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when Kazakhs are Slavic?[edit]

What is this edir that refers Kazakhs as a Slavic ethnic group? Since when Kazakhs are Slavic? Are you Wikipedia moderators learning history from tiktok or something? Nazarbaevax (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the sourced genetic study[edit]

Please pay attention to the study in the source. It is a study not only about Kazakhs but also about Mongols. Some of the percentages stated are in regards to Kazakhs, and some are in regards to Mongols. Of the about 6%–40% mentioned in the introductory paragraph of the study, the about 6% pertains to the Mongols and about 40% pertains to the Kazakhs, which is made clear in this paragraph of the same study:

The ancestry inference of mongolians and chinese kazakhs
For identifying East-West plausible admixture models for our studied populations, we systematically explored diverse qpAdm-based admixture models for Mongolians and Chinese Kazakhs in this study. Firstly, we used Han Chinese and French as proxies for the East Asian and West Eurasian related source populations in a two-way admixture. Mongolian_Ölöd individuals were estimated to have 27.6% French related ancestry, Mongolian_Chahar individuals had 18.3%, and Inner Mongolian had only 6.6% (Figure 4 and Supplementary Table S7). We found the proportions of French related ancestry in published Mongolia samples (Mallick et al. 2016) and our newly reported Inner Mongolian samples were at the same level, 6.8% and 6.6%, respectively. Our newly genotyped Chinese Kazakh and published Kazakh samples from Kazakhstan (Mallick et al. 2016) had much more West Eurasian related admixture at the proportions of 37.7% and 35%, respectively, which was consistent with the PCA, ADMIXTURE and f statistics.

--Beverage95 (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I made it more precise and mentioned the exact percentage (mean average of 35% to 37,7%). But I also mentioned the cline (6% to 40%) which is sourced here:

Mongolians and Kazakhs are on a genetic cline in terms of different proportions of West Eurasian related admixture from 6% to 40%. The genetic source for the West Eurasian ancestry was most likely Bronze Age Steppe population-related. We note that the small number of sampled individuals from different tribes is a limitation of the study.

That means while the Kazakh average is 35% and 37,7% respectively, individual sampling reveals a cline between 6% and 40%, which is inline with the ethnogenesis of Kazakhs. (I.e. Mongolian originated clans among modern Kazakhs).
Furthermore, I corrected the ethnic affinity, which is closest to Kyrgyz, Tublar and Ölöd (tribe). Thank you very much!178.165.194.119 (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way I understand it, the first sentence you quoted just says that Mongols and Kazakhs are both on a genetic cline of West Eurasian related admixture, but at a different level of it. I don't see the study mention the 6% figure in regards to Kazakhs, it's only mentioned specifically to certain Mongol subgroups, in the part I quoted. Feel free to quote any sentence that links the 6% figure to Kazakhs specifically if I missed it somewhere. Thanks.--Beverage95 (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Link unavailable[edit]

Hi, I've never edited Wikipedia before (and I do not know how to) but I just wanted to point out that the link for Kazakhs in Philippines [23] is no longer available. Just thought I'd shed some light on this, have a great day! SailorTF2 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity[edit]

Can we all just take a moment to process the stupidity in the idea that ethnic Kazakhs do cultural appropriation of Kazakh oral tradition for propaganda purposes. WTF? I cannot think of any idea stupider than that and that says something because I've found a lot of stupid stuff in Wikipedia - I have found Koreans and Russians being called ethnic Kazakhs, Crimean Tatars being called the most "especially related" to Kazakhs of all ethnic groups (are we pretending the Karakalpaks don't exist now?), people called "ethnically Muslim" (because apparently Islam is an ethnoreligion now?) - but nothing nearly as close in racism and stupidity as this. You cannot commit cultural appropriation of your own culture, expressing your own culture is not cultural appropriation it is just culture. Cultural appropriation is when other people bastardize your culture not when you retain your own culture. And saying that Kazakhs especially use oral tradition for propaganda is also really stupid, political and moral themes are universal in all oral tradition.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is "sg."?[edit]

Article starts: "The Kazakhs (also spelled Qazaqs; Kazakh: sg. қазақ" I couldn't find any reference to this abbreviation. If nobody explains it to me, I'll delete it. It's not documented I believe. Santropedro (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kazakhs&oldid=1203288498"