Talk:Oghuz Turks

|1=

Comments

?

"are regarded as one of the major branches" manages to combine peacock words with the passive of non-attribution to offer an information-free puff. Wetman 20:09, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry?

I think the correct comment is:{{cleanup-copyedit}}Gareth Hughes 02:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redundancy

I removed this paragraph from the article:

Throughout history, the Oghuz Turks have founded different nations that have developed political and geographical identities of their own, yet share Oghuz ancestry, culture, history, language and literature. The modern Turkic nations of Azerbaijanis, Turks of Turkey and Turkmen are the three most historical of Oguz Turk peoples.

The second paragraph of the article reads:

The Oghuz Turks are the ancestors of today's western Turks whose numbers are more than 100 million and inhabit areas in western Asia and eastern Europe: Azerbaijanis of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the South Azerbaijan region of Iran, Turks of Turkey and Cyprus, Turkmens of Turkmenistan and northeastern Iran, Qashqay and Khurasani Turks of Iran, Balkan Turks of Greece, Bulgaria and the former Yugoslavia as well as Gauguz (Gokoguz) Turks of Moldova.

Which has all the same information in it already. siafu 16:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. When I read, I understand that the fist paragraph is related to States formed directly by Oghuz Turks. The second paragraph tells us the lands where they live. I wish you have not removed. Would you please restore? Tengriteg

Vprotect

What is the reason for the vprotect template? siafu 23:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page has been targetted by a particularly pernicious vandal, who requires a great deal of administrator attention to deal with. In the flurry of page protections and blocks, it is difficult to keep the actual page protection status in sync with the presence of a template indicating the block status. Nohat 00:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the Safavids

" ... If one looks at the record of Iranian historians during the same period, the scene is similar: a rather barren landscape relieved by a few lofty peaks. In 1927-8 Ahmad Kasravi led the way with the publication of three seminal articles entitled Nizhad va Tabar-i Safaviyya (`The genealogy of the Safavids'); Safaviyya sayyid nabuda and (`The Safavids were not sayyids'); and Baz ham Safaviyya (`The Safavids again')[17]. Kasravi disputed the validity of the `official' Safavid genealogy contained in the Safvat al-Safa and followed by most later Safavid chronicles[18], and argued convincingly that the ancestors of Shaykh Safi al-Din, who founded the Safavid Order (tariqa), were indigenous inhabitants of Iran (az bumiyan-i bastan-i iran budan) and were of pure Aryan stock (juz nizhad-i aryani nadashta and). Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan. Kasravi's important articles were published in the journal Ayandeh, which was not readily available in the West, and, despite the fact that they were republished as a pamphlet in 1944, in an expanded and revised form, they unfortunately continued to be overlooked by many historians. These included the Turkish scholar Zeki Velidi Togan who, working on the oldest available MSS. of the Safvat al-Safa, independently reached many of the same conclusions reached by Kasravi thirty years earlier[19]. At the same time, Togan tried to lay to rest the persistent claim by Turkish historians that Shah Isma'il I was a Turk, but this claim resurfaced from time to time in the writings of Turcophiles, such as David Ayalon[20], and was usually based on the fact that Isma'il spoke the Azari dialect of Turkish, which Toynbee calls one of "the vulgar tongues of camp and court"[21], and had written poems in Azari under the pen-name of Khata'i. ..." Roger M. Savory, Professor Emeritus University of Toronto (one of the authors of the "Encyclopaedia Iranica")

As you can read in the text above, the Safavids were not Turkish, and thus, they cannot be considered "Oghuz" ... -Tajik 00:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Safavids, in Turkish Safevi, weren't Oghuz Turks. Perhaps, Ismail was a Turk, but not Oghuz. I agree with Tajik.

Ismail I article says that he is the grandson of Akkoyunlu (Turkoman, Oguz) leader Uzun Hasan. His mother is Uzun Hasan's daughter Halima Begum, his father's side are all Turkish speaking Azeris (http://bss.sfsu.edu/behrooz/Safavid.htm). I would think that he is pretty much Oguz not that it matters that much. AverageTurkishJoe 03:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopaedia Iranica, the most authoritive work on Iranian history, the Safavids were an ethnic Iranian clan from Azerbaijan, probably of Kurdish origin. It is well known that Ismail's mother was half-Turkmen (while his mother's mother was Greek), but the "ethnic group" of a dynasty is not defined by female lines. Sheikh Safi al-Din Eshaq Ardabeli was an Iranian-speaking Kurd from Azerbaijan who used to write poems in old-Azerbaijani (an Iranian language; not to be confused with the modern Turkic language known as "Azeri") and in Persian. The Safavids considered themselvs "Iranians" and revived nationalist Iranian movements, closely connected to the new Shia belief in Iran. Here are the sources from the Encyclopaedia Iranica:

Book 1, p. 240, line 6 (left) - my comments are in parentheses --> [...]:

" ... Azari [= Middle-Iranian language spoken in Azerbaijan before the Turkic conquest] lost ground [in Azerbaijan] at a faster pace than before, so that even the early Safavids, originally an Iranian-speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Safi-al-Din, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified ..."

It is further stated in p. 241:

" ... The language of these poems [= Azerbaijani Persian ("Azeri")] is almost identical to that of Shaikh Safi-al-Din's dobaytis ... of the written remains of Azeri, the dobaytis of Shaikh Safi-al-Din are the most important: They are relatively old, their linguistic area and their author are known, and they are accompanied by a paraphrase in Persian which helps their understanding. ..."

• Safavids were Iranian-speaking
• EARLY Safavids (meaning the early grand-masters, like Junayed, Haydar, etc) were Turkified
• LATER Safavids (meaning the Safavid Shahs) were Persianized

Tajik 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Safavids management style was so different from Oghuz style. Of course, this was under influence of Shii belives. For ins. according to Safavids all rulers should have come from family of prophet. In Ottoman style, they could be any member of dynasty family. Also, lifestyle of Safavids was so different from Oghuz.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 08:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tajik please look [[1]] here and see what another users say about the conflict.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion was the most important issue during the middle ages rather than the ethnic background, it was before the debut of the nation states. For example, Safavids were Shi'a and the Ottomans were Sunni(mainly it was why Selim I attacked to Iran). Shah Ismail was basically coming from a Turkic background but he was under the influence of Shi'a belief system which is still the leading force of politics and religion in Iran. That doesn't make him Iranian or Kurdish or Alien. With respect, Deliogul 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is important to remember that, while the Safavid ruling house was likely not Turkic (other than possible Azeri ties through Isma'il's mother, a significant proportion of their Qizilbash forces did consider themselves of Turkic and specifically Oghuz origin. To the extent that the dynasty depended upon these Turkic tribes to maintain power, it could be argued that it was in some sense Turkic/Oghuz. I believe Minorsky made the argument that the Qizilbash can be viewed as the third succession in the line of Turkman dynasties (following the Qara Qoyunlu and the Aq Quyunlu).

There is an important mistake here

Gokturks are not of Oguz origin they are beys of Asına tribe overrun by Oguz after death of "Kapağan Han" who rulled oguz with an iron fist (his army was 400 000 horsemen and horsewomen).For this reason Oguz never called themselves as Turks till 15th century(Mehmet II of Ottomans used name Turk). For Ottomans and other oguz tribes ,Turk meaned who lived in Turkestan those times.

Where Oghuz Turks live today

I removed Germany, Austria, Belgium, Great Britain, etc. from the list of countries with Oghuz Turk population. The way it was written before would puzzle those who are not familiar with this part of history, and they might think that the Nazis spared the Turks from their concentration camps during WW2! I believe this part of the article should list the countries of traditional settlement of the Oghuz Turks, and not the places of Turkish diaspora after WW2! Also, I have never heard of a country called Gagavuz. Instead, I put Moldova. Also, there is no longer Yugoslavia, I put Serbia instead, there are a small number of ethnic Turks in Serbia, mostly refugees who fled the Albanian ethnic violence in Kosovo. As far as I know, no Turks live in Montenegro, that's why I didn't put "Serbia and Montenegro". The Montenegrins were renowned for their "love" for Turks and Muslims, this is why, even in Ottoman times, no Turks dared to live in that tiny mountainous country). Oh, now I've remembered that I forgot Romania, there is an ethnic Turkish minority in Romanian Dobruja! I wondered whether to remove Greece from the list, because those who are called Turks in Greek Thrace are ethnic Bulgarians of Muslim faith, Pomaks, or Pomakoi in Greek. Still, Greece is a country of traditional Turkish settlement, there were quite a lot of Turks in today's Greece before the Balkan Wars, WW1 and the Greco-Turkish war of the 1920-es. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.11.148.71 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 15 May 2006.

Traditional settlements are Anatolia and Central Asia. We conquered Balkans and settled there for couple of centuries but today, Turks live in their homeland. With respect, Deliogul 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks,

Oghuz Turks

The source that says that the Oghuz Turks are partial ancestors of today's Turkic speakers is incorrect, and the source is outdated. Genetic testing has since been done, which contradicts this information. Furthermore, I read the source provided and no where does it list the people that are supposedly of partial Oghuz descent, which makes the list in the next sentence complete original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies.Azerbaijani 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Azerbaijani,

In fact the source reads that they are the direct ancestors of Oghuz Turks. But I preferred to write partial not to cause any commotion. And the source is fairly new.

Historically, there were hundreds of thousands of Oghuz Turks who migrated to modern day Iran, Caucasia and Turkey. And the migration, of course degrading in the course of time, went on as far as the 19th century. They did not make up the majority of the lands they migrated certainly, but precisely they made contributions to the populations they migrated. For this reason, we preferred to write partial.

Genetical analyses are rather new and I don't think they can give precise information for the moment. Of course noone can know what can happen ten years from now.

Besides, until now I never heard of any extensive genetical research on the origins of Southwestern Turkic peoples overall.

Chapultepec 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The source is from 1994. Since then, extensive genetic studies have been done in Turkey, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Iranian Azerbaijan. In Turkey, it was determined that the ancestors were Indo European speakers (Iranics, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, etc...), in the Republic of Azerbaijan it was determined that the ancestors were Caucasian tribes, and in Iranian Azerbaijan it was determined that the ancestors were Iranic. A source from 13 years ago, which was written before such scientific tests were conducted, is clearly outdated and incorrect.Azerbaijani 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The date 1994 is fairly new. And as for the genetical studies, would you please bring down those scientific results? And of course from their related scientific source or website. Thanks...

Chapultepec 15:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For instance you can have a look at these sources:

Ancient DNA Tells Tales from the Grave

Chicago University Journal, page 259 (page 13 of 14 in Adobe Reader)

Chapultepec 15:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the first article you mentioned has anything to do with Oghuz Turks or Turks being descendent's of them and I cant read your second article. Also, 1994 is not a "fairly new" source (its 13 years old...there have been scientific genetic studies done since then). Again, genetic tests conducted in Turkey, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Iran contradict the information given in this article. I think we can both agree that saying that the Oghuz Turks are the linguistic ancestors of modern day Turks in South West Asia is very accurate and the most appropriate statement for this article.Azerbaijani 20:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are the genetic tests done for Turkey: [2]

Here are the genetic tests for Azeri's: [3] (this study was conducted in Iran by Cambridge University. The following report is in Persian, I dont know if you can read it or not) [4]&[5] (these studies were conducted in the Republic of Azerbaijan)

All of these were done in the 2000's. Please do not be stubborn about this issue. Lets just agree on a compromise and say that the Oghuz Turks are the linguistic ancestors of Turkic peoples in South West Asia.Azerbaijani 20:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Azerbaijani,

Both of the articles are quite readable. I gave the links and page numbers above. The articles briefly read that Turkish people, to some extent, do have some Turkic genetic origins.

The first source, namely Assyrian foundation, is not a scientific source, just a foundation. Would you please supply sources from scientific or academical sources? For example like the ones I supplied above...

The other sources are in Persian, please provide sources in English for everyone to be able to understand.

Again, even if these sources support your claims, then they contradict the sources I supplied, which are precisely scientific sources.

Lastly, modern ethnic groups, especially in the Middle East, are products of well mixture. No group can escape from that, Arabs and Persians included. But every ethnic group of course has, to some extent, the genes of the peoples who formed the nucleus of them. That's why I prefer the word partial instead of the other ones.

Thanks...

Chapultepec 20:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. The source regarding Turkey is from Dr. Joel J. Elias Professor (Emeritus), University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco, so it is highly credible. Also, the source for the genetic studies in Iran is a Cambridge University study, conducted by an Azeri. All the other sources are credible as well, some of which are Russian studies.

Again, I could not open the PDF file, however, the first source you added mentions nothing of you claims. It does not say anything about Oghuz Turks being the descendent's of South West Asian Turkic speakers, however, all it says is that some Turkish people have their links in Mongolia. It does not support the Oghuz claim, and certainly says nothing of all the Turkic peoples that may be their descendent's. Your interpretations violate Wikipedia NOR (no original research).Azerbaijani 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Azerbaijani actually trying to argue that modern Turks and Azerbaijanis have no genetic descent from the Turkic tribes who migrated into those regions in the later middle ages? That seems difficult to defend. john k 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not arguing that, the genetic tests are arguing that (San Fransisco University studies, Cambridge University studies, Russian studies...).Azerbaijani 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course they're not arguing that. You're really saying that genetic tests prove that Turks aren't descended from Turkic peoples at all? john k 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

How about this (I have also shortened the length of the intro to make it more neat. People can click the links to find out the locations of these people; this way, the intro flows very smoothly and sounds a lot nicer and is less messy):

The Oghuz Turks are partial ancestors[1] of some of today's Southwestern Turks and the linguistic ancestors to others, making a combined population of more than 100 million Turkic speakers. These include Azerbaijanis, Turks (of Turkey), Turkish Cypriots, Balkan Turks, Turkmens, Qashqai, Khorasani, and Gagauz.

During Turkic mass-migrations in the 9th through 12th centuries, the Oghuz were among the indigenous Turks of Central Asia who migrated towards western Asia and eastern Europe via Transoxiana. From the 5th century onward, the Oghuz were the founders and rulers of several important Turkic kingdoms and empires, the most notable of them being the Seljuks, and the Ottomans.

Reasonable?Azerbaijani 22:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not bad actually.. At the end of the day, modern Turks cannot be the direct descendants of only Oghuz Turks. They have also mixed with local populations and, during the migrations of centuries of Ottoman rule, that mix was really accentuated. Personally, if in the lead we are going to use "partial" then there is no need for "some" right after. What do others think? Baristarim 23:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But it looks a like a good intro :) Baristarim 23:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi all,

I think it is not so reasonable. Partial ancestors of whom, linguistic ancestors of whom? Today the modern Turkic peoples of the Middle East do have, to some extent, Turkic lineage. I repeat, the same goes for the other ethnic groups too, especially the ones in the Middle East.

Of course they are not the direct descendants of only Oghuz Turks, that's why the word partial takes place in the text. But saying that some of them are partial and the others are linguistic will simply be a forced separation, which is in fact impossible.

Would you please kindly bring down the results of those scientific sources, namely San Fransisco University studies, Cambridge University studies, Russian studies from their respective websites?

Then we can compare it to the ones I supplied above, which contradicts your claims.

Thanks...

Chapultepec 23:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Baristarim has right about the word partial, it already contains the meaning of some. So, I think the current wording in the article is the most accurate one.

Chapultepec 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. It is also true that there would be a problem determining who is partial and who is linguistic and to what degree.. So what is the reason of the dispute anyways? I took another look at the intro and it doesn't look that bad really. In fact, the first time I came across the article it used to say that the Oghuz were the ancestors, not just partial. Anyways, Turk can mean both Turkic ethnic origin or Turkic speaker or both. In the modern sense, a Turk is not someone whose great-great-...-great-grandfather was a pureblood Turk of Central Asia. It just means someone who speaks a Turkic language and/or is a citizen of Turkey (even though these can be confused sometimes) - just like Iran (the country strictly speaking) and Iran (the cultural area), right? :)) Baristarim 23:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're right. In fact the word partial is satisfactory to meet the both meanings. It is really impossible to make distinction between the linguistic and the partial. Because we are all mixed, just like all the other ethnic groups of the region, Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Greeks et alii.

Additionally, I can't understand why the user is so persistent to separate the groups like "some of them partial and the others are linguistic". So far as I remember I haven't met an article about any ethnic group or groups saying that "some of them are this, the others are that etc". If an ethnic group is a mixed one, you can say partly or partially, that should be enough.

Chapultepec 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, partial assumes that all Turkic speakers are of partial Oghuz descent, which is incorrect. Also, saying that some are linguistic and some are partial descendents is not wrong nor does it mean separation or confusion. Again, users can click on the Wikilinks of the groups listed to find out more (that is what Wikilinking was created for). I think this is very reasonable and satisfies all the users involved. You dont understand why I want to put the facts into this article? Well, similarly, I can say the same, I dont understand why you would want to keep information out of this article. Hey, Wikipedia has rules against Original Research and Point of View. It is not up to you or me what goes and does not go in articles, especially if the information is heavily sourced. What I am trying to do is come to a compromise, and I dont understand why you want to be stubborn on this issue. The version of the intro I proposed satisfies all parties involved and also keeps away and edit war. Come on guys, lets just compromise this and put the issue behind us instead of getting into a long long debate or edit warring, which benefits no one and certainly does not benefit Wikipedia. You have to remember that you guys joined up Wikipedia (I assume, I have no reason to doubt your integrity, which I dont) to update articles with facts, not personal feelings. Lets try and stay objective.Azerbaijani 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but saying that "some is partial, some is linguistic" is a separation and in fact it's impossible. The word partial already gives the meaning of some and it's quite adequate. And the Turkic peoples generally have, to some extent as I told before, a Turkic lineage as well along with the other ones. I repeat, this mixation is not specific to Turkic peoples only, it goes for almost all the modern ethnic groups, especially in the Middle East.

The word partial only means some or to some extent, and I think this is the best wording for the text involved.

Just to be objective, would you please kindly bring down the results of those scientific sources, namely San Francisco University studies, Cambridge University studies, Russian studies from their respective websites? Then we can have a debate according to those arguments.

Chapultepec 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the intro, as it is, says the that the Oghuz Turks are partial ancestors of today's Southwestern Turks. This implies that they are the partial descendent's of all of them, which is correct if you mean linguistically, but incorrect if you mean genetically. None of the studies you showed said anything of the sort. Again, some being of partial and some being of linguistic is completely plausible, and is, fact. I can give you a very good example. Most Americans are English linguistically, but not all of them are English genetically, infact, more are not.

Please, my version is very acceptable and includes every side, yours and mine, and is supported by both our sources. Lets just agree on this compromise, its very acceptable.

I posted everything you asked for already.Azerbaijani 01:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have given links to Iranian websites consisted of webpages written in Persian. I would be glad if you try to find the sources that support your claim from their academic sources, and of course they should be in English. Sorry for my not knowing Persian.

As for the American example, you're right. But this goes for almost all the ethnic groups as well. Shall we write then the same thing in all the articles in their respective articles all through the Wikipedia? And I think the word partial already gives the meaning of that.

And of course the first question comes to my mind when I read your intro, who are the partial descendants, and who are the linguistic ones? We are all mixed, it is impossible to make such distinction.

Sorry, this is not personal, I believe your integrity too, but it doesn't seem much reasonable to me.

Chapultepec 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Only one of them is in Persian(but its based on a Cambridge University study), and you still have not commented on the others, which are in English. Well, genetic testing has shown no connection between Azeri's (In Iran and in the Caucasus) and Central Asia, infact, not even a connection to the Turks of Turkey. Again, my version works fine for all parties, if people want to know the specifics, they can click on the Wikilinks provided (such as Azerbaijani people where they can go and learn more).Azerbaijani 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize Azerbaijani, I should have a rest for awhile. If necessary, we can go on discussing the issue tomorrow night. Best wishes..

Chapultepec 02:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Its ok.Azerbaijani 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

First one, namely Assyrian foundation, is not a scientific source. Second one is in Persian. Third one reads more closely related, not fully related. The last one is about the Iranian speaking peoples in Azerbaijan. So, I'm not so satisfied. It doesn't seem much reasonable to me.

Even if I don't agree with you, just to show good will, I will try to make some changes on the text.

Chapultepec 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyeditor's questions

Hi. I have no knowledge of the Turkish language and very little of Turkey and Turks. I started to copyedit this page, but I ran into trouble because I can't tell what some of it means. (Ignorance works to my advantage here, because I will know it when a passage is unclear.) If someone would be kind enough to walk me through the article point by point, I will do what I can to make it read well.

1. To say that the Orghuz "are regarded" seems to mean that their status is in dispute. If so, by whom, and what are the alternate theories?

2. The capital "s" in "Southwestern Turks" implies that there is a well defined classification of Turks by compass orientation, and one of these groups calls themselves the Southwestern Turks.

3. I'm not sure one can be a "linguistic ancestor" in the sense that one can have descendants that can be literally counted along with the direct ancestors. Do these linguistic descendants call themselves "Orghuz Turks"? In other words, is "Orghuz" a term in current use among the Turkish people. Do they identify themselves as Orghuz if asked, or is it more a historical label? Do some of the linguistic descendants retain an ethnic self-image other than Orghuz? You see my confusion. Some of this is answered later in "Anthropology," but I'd like to have a complete picture.

3. Again, "linguistic ancestors of others." Are these "others" ethnic Turks or not? Don't imagine that I care, I just want to get the wording right, and "liguistic ancestors" rings coy as it stands. I have to suppose that "empire builders" swallowed up non-Turkish people as they went, and that's why we're talking about "linguistic ancestors" in the first place.

Section "Name":

4. "...a series of Turkic tribes..." The word "series" is mystifying. It seems to imply a sequential operation.

Section "Origins":

5. "...large communal branch..." What does this mean?

6. "...written in Central Asia at least from the ninth and tenth centuries..." I want to make this "...written in Central Asia during the ninth and tenth centuries...", but I have to suppose that the writer meant something by "at least." Also, I can't see how it's an "example" of anything pertinent to the paragraph.

7. "Also in the 2nd century BC..." If this "also" refers to "the Huns (220BC)", then that would be the 3rd century BC. Which is it?

8. Same sentence, "...a western hostility of Huns..." Is this a quote from something? It isn't modern English, and seems to be an amusingly awkward literal translation. I like it a lot (it's like "a murder of crows"), but I wonder what it is.

9. "...Turkic Orhun inscriptions (6th century)..." BC? If this is the first written reference, and it appears in the 6th century AD, how do we know about Oguz Khan in 220 BC?

10. It would be nice to have a date span for the Gokturk (please excuse the lack of diacritics) empire.

Section "Anthropology":

11. "...the authors state...", etc. What authors?

Section "Social Unit":

12. There is much quoted material, but quoted from what? This is a deal-breaker. I won't be able to do anything until that is straightened out.

13. The heading is "Social Unit", but we get a lot of culture. Perhaps a separate "Culture" heading is needed.

14. "...and when settled they would be active in agriculture." I don't see how this connects with their lack of emphasis on wealth. It is common for nomads to change when they become settled people.

This is almost certainly not a complete list of my questions, but it will do to get started. Thanks. Milkbreath 12:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)