Pan-Turkic historiography

With any such subject, qirt, an argument as you have put forward rests on the evidence it is built on. Can either overturn the other with proof. I recently heard an argument suggesting a connection between Sumerians and Turkic people through language analysis, only for it to be shown how the present day Hungarian language has more similarities. I would be interested to hear theories as to connections between ancient peoples listed and Turkic peoples, and any evidence that can be brought to light. 

Originally posted by qirt Are Turkic writers changing world history or world historians - "enemies" of the Turkics changing the Turkic history? They complaining that world historians falsificated their history.

History is not technical science, it is social. That's why there is no such thing as true World History.

Example:
Changing ruler of Constantinople, this is historical thing but when you call it "Fall of Constantinople" or "Conquest of the Istanbul", you choose a side.

I have been in India. Their idea is that the homeland of democracy is India, so actually many people are ignoring history which was written by Pan Europeans

Common history is full with European perspective and in same way not all pan-turkic is objective, these ideas shouldn't turn super race theory as in Hitler's Germany.