Talk:Oghuz Turks

Comments

"The mention of the "six Oghuz tribal union" in the Turkic Orhun inscriptions (6th century) pertains to the unification of the six Turkic tribes which became known as the Oghuz. This was the first written reference to Oghuz, and was dated to the period of the Göktürk empire. The Oghuz community gradually grew larger, uniting more Turkic tribes prior and during the Göktürk establishment.[9]"

Oghuz term ment confediration of tribes, it's not an ethnic group of people. This article is extreamly ahistoric trying to represent an entire Turkic ethnos history as hisotory of Turkmen Oghuz. Article misleadingly states that Gok-Turks were Oghus, Huns were Oghuz and all so on. Term Oghuz is close to Oyghur, nothing more that tribe confediration, it doesn't mean particular tribe group and can mean completely different tribes every time it mentioned.

The first part of article seems sound while second part is just ahistoric something, disconnected from all modern researches world wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.180.253 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

?

"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). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.53.11 (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Article needs a lot of improvement

I was going to try to contribute more but I am not sure if its worth the effort. The article should be rewritten:

1. The name of this article should simply be Oghuz. Oghuz Turks is misleading. The name Gök Turks is another example that should simply be Türks , (Tujue, T'u-chüeh). At the time -though related- the Oghuz and the Turks were separate peoples who were at war with one another.
2. The article should focus on the past not the present. There are no Oghuz today but peoples identifying themselves under different names.
3. The DNA misinformation and synthesis (as it is becoming epidemic) should be taken out. We are not aware of any Oghuz DNA. Furthermore Xiongnu, Turks, or Oghuz were never a monoethnic group. Whose DNA is this. Unless a professional historian makes use of it the DNA stuff will only serve to push a POV.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree, equating ancient Xiongnu with Oghuz is too far fetch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.180.253 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Anthropology?

Anthropology section has nothing to do with Anthropology (as in Humanities.) It is again the same propaganda of "Turks in Turkey are not Turkish/Oguz etc." We might as well pick a random city (say Berlin/London/Moscow/Dushanbe) and discuss whether Turks in that city are Turks/Oguz. If we actually trace the migration routes of the Oguz and their settlement locations and the ethnic affiliation of modern populations with the Oguz; that is Anthropology. But this -as it is- is propaganda. You will notice in every article related to Turks/Turkic peoples etc someone will insert this same talking point, phrased almost exactly the same under, section titles like "DNA Evidence", "Historical Background", "Anthropology" etc. Whether there is a merit to these arguments is irrelevant; these wikipedia editors are so busy tagging every Turkish/Turkic related article with this template and they can't be bothered whether what their doing makes sense or not. I will remove this whole section in a week if there are no objections. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more. The Oghuz are a historical people and citizens of Turkey are pretty much irrelevant. I tried to improve the article by starting with the real Oghuz and taking out the DNA stuff but it was reverted by an Iranian user as here. There are many articles claiming "DNA evidence" pushing other agendas as in this case was an Iranian. There is no "Oghuz DNA" so what is being compared? But this is relatively a minor issue. The problem in WP is that despite the stated rules it is relatively easy to push for agendas especially when a bunch of people coordinate their efford. I have been involved in a number of articles and have encountered cases where even quotations were altered to state the contrary. (See List of Turkic states where the word "Kurdish" replaced "Turkish" by same User:Larno Man) I guess some of these users are only doing what is expected of them. The real issue is that if, say, people of Turkey consider themselves of Oghuz descent why don't they participate in writing an article about their ancectors. According to article Turkic peoples there are 140 to 160 million Turkic peoples in the world today. I have been involved in the article List of Turkic states for the past several months. Despite my mediation request half a dozen or so Iranian and several Bulgarian users dominated the article shaping it to their POV. The Turks and the other peoples from the supposedly "Turkic" states were and still are absent. The history of Turks has always been written by others and this is just another example. Therefore the blame and shame goes to those who either don't know their history or do not care about it. Ironically the interest shown to this article by those from Turkey in a sense reinforces what is stated in the "Anthropology" section.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nostradamous, This is not our job to re-write the history to please our dear Turkish friends. If the Safavids have Kurdish origin(although the were Turckisized), I cann't change it to make you happy. Please stop this outdated idialogy that "only a Turk knows who he is". I have many Turkish friends and I am getting to know what strange things are written in your school text books. You are raised by these distorted information and it is time to face the reality. I really understand why you are shocked when you read some information on Turks and their history! Thanks Internet that you can study history from the prospective of other people out of the circle of the nationalist Turkish scholars who believe in pseudo-science such as Sun Theory. So, take a deep breath! Yes, there are many things that you did't know but you should cope with the reality and if it is true but you don't like it, just get over it! It is not end of the world if DNA tests prove that there is less than 9% Turkish blood in bodies of our Anatolian friends. Science is ending many nonsense nationalistic claims! --Larno Man (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Larno Man, whether you are an Iranian or a Kurd trying to establish a presence in the face of human history is irrelevant. I have read sufficient history from non-Turkish sources. The Safavids were a "dynasty of Turkish speech and origin". That is what the source in the relevant article says but you selectively took out the word origin. What is it? One of these days there will be a Kurdistan and you want to write a history for it? Provide sources. I am all for a Kurdistan as long as they can make it. States are ought to be built naturally, not artificially in cyberspace. So far objective history tells us that Kurds were not a state building people since there isn't a a single one that can be counted as such. I have never used Turkish references because there is no need for that. I leave you with a quote from Babur to whom you guys are dying to attach some Iranian attributes:

Trifle not with the Turk, O Mir of Bayana
For the agility and bravery of the Turk are obvious.
If you do not come soon and listen to reason
What need is there for clarification of the obvious?

Let us not confuse the sheep and the shepherds! The DNA stuff is simply a crap. Provide historians as sources not self-made synthesis for original research.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The article on Safavids provided good sources on Safavids' origin and that Sheikh Safi-e-Din family had migrated from Kurdistan to Ardabil. The thing where I am from and what is my ethnicity is irrelevant. Discuss my edits and not my nationality! That's really bad that you judge based on editors' ethnicity or nationalities and not their edits--Larno Man (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to go into the Safavids here. The article was about the List of Turkic states. I have sources stating that "in the sixteenth century the three mightiest thrones of Islam (the Ottoman Empire, the Safavid of Persia, and the Great Moghul of India) were filled by families of Turkish speech and origin". Perhaps, that bothers some people. Nevertheless it allows me to include them in the list. Regarding the DNA, again a sentence like "DNA tests prove that there is less than 9% Turkish blood in bodies of our Anatolian friends" is simply idiotic boloney. Do they have a Turkishness-meter now to mesure it? There is no doubt that some of the native Anatolian population was Turkified but this phenomenon also applies to all countries. These DNA research claims are all used by people like you to push their agenda. This is half-science. Regarding that I "judge based on editors' ethnicity or nationalities and not their edits": I hate to say that but my overall observation regarding this has taught me to take this into consideration. Theory and practice are different and in life we learn from experience. Why do you think you went and reverted all of my two day's worth of edits all of a sudden? I did not even bother to read your talk page to guess where you came from. It is as simple as that. As long as we follow WP rules we still should be able to improve articles. But if you are going to take out the word "origin" from a quotation just to have it your way we will have problems.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right! Genetic tests are half science but theories such as Sun Theory and that craps in the Ruhnama, the holy book of Turkmens written by Turkmenbashi are science. I don't understand why people like you get offended to hear that they are not 100% Turk. Do you believe that Turkish race is superior to other races, or other races lower than Turks? Is that what you mean? Is that why you try prove that you are 100% pure? Regarding, your edits. You may spend hours and days, but where they don't meet WP standards. They are challenged. For example I gave you some times to provide reference for Turkish origin of Bahmanids. But, it seems that the quality of edits is not as important as the quantity of them. I don't say that it is unlikely for Bahmanids to be Turk but citation needed --Larno Man (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How much time did you give me before taking out that entry? A day? Then you realized I was right and you put it right back. I will tell you one thing here and suggest that you read this very carefully. It is neither this article's subject to prove anything about people of Turkey not is your place to question my ethnic background. Stick to the subject of the articles and you will learn more in the process. It has become clear to me that quite few Iranians carry this jealous attitude and not surprisingly pop up here and there to prove themselves to the world. What an ego. I read the news about sanctions on a state run by egomaniac leaders. It is sad that Iran was run by non-Iranians for almost a millenia and until as late as 1925 but revising history is not going to help restore anything. BTW, I am putting back the intro section which is who the historical Oghuz were. That is the correct focus of the article not people of Turkey many of whom have nothing to do with the Oghuz.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim that I know every thing. I found a reference and put it back. You may learn it from me and don't insist on your first position all the time. Regarding your other statement I will respond in the morning. Good night--Larno Man (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And for the God sake! Jealous of what? Read history. Turks owe Iranians a lot. They even learnt how to write from Iranians (See Turkish Language in WP and Sogdian alphabet) That was Iranian that help you in the process of transition from hunter gatherer and nomadic people to civilized people. Look at history when Persian was official language of all Turkish-Mongolic states from Ottoman to Indian Mongols. Was it by force or was it because of supremacy of Iranian culture and civilization at that time. We don't need to steal Iranian scholars such as Rumi, Kharazmi, Hajji Bektash Wali, Nizami and claim they were Turk.... Anyhow, I just mention that to ask you to smooth your arrogant tone. Iranians have nothing against their neighbor in Turkey. I personally have many intimate Turkish friends and unfortunately with all my respects to them all of them think that Turks are the superb race in the world and everybody in the world is jealous of them. And change your way of thinking about Iranians. Current government of Iran has nothing to do with me and other Iranian users in WP and most of them are ashamed of current situation, now and forever. Indeed, these days are dark pages of our history. But, we are not like some people who are trying to deny dark pages of their history such as Armenian genocide killing more than 1 million civilians in 20 century. Regarding the section. This information should stay to show what is the relation between Oghuz Turks and modern Turkish speaking people. People should know how much modern Turks relate to Oghuz Turks.--Larno Man (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"help you in the process of transition from hunter gatherer..." and "dark pages of their history such as Armenian genocide" clarifies it for me that you do not deserve further discussion about this article.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think that it is not dark page of the history. What was it? The glorious page of the history? Do you know that in many countries,Armenian genocide denial is a crime.--Larno Man (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge had always transfered from older civilizations to newer ones. These happened to Germanic people when they start contacting Romans or when Iranians nomads contacted much older Civilizations such as Assyrians and Babylonians, and for Romans when they contacted Phoenicians and Greeks. You can't claim that this transition happened for Turks without help of the older Civilizations in their region (Central Asia and Middle East)--Larno Man (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Larno Man, you are probably an Iraninan of Kurdish origin, or an Iranian that hates the Azeri Turks in Iran and that makes you blind of history and full of hatred against everything Turkic and Turkish. It is the most stupid claim I've ever heard that Turks "even learnt how to write" from the Iranians. In fact, I understand that it makes you so angry that Seldjuks (Turks) administrated Iran so long and then Safavids (of Turkish orgin), a fact that the so called "civilized" Iraninans could not administer themselves. And, Anthropoloy section is very unnecessary for it contains unproved claims and unscientific conclusions and should be removed or edited. Oghuz Turks are the ancestors of modern-day Turks, that is for sure, no necessary to discuss it. Bkadirbeyoglu (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I said read Turkish Language first which is FA. The section is written by your fellow Turkish editors. On first Turkish written texts in Sogdian which is an Iranian language. --Larno Man (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why you guys are so aggressive? It is paranoia. You think everybody who is going to contribute in Turkish related articles is your enemy. This is not battlefield. Prove your point if you think Oghuz Turks your 100% ancestors. I don't mind what you read in your school history textbooks . Prove your claim by reliable sources. This discussion is useless. I discuss your claims if it is based on reliable source and ignore your racial accusation and wrap up this discussion. --Larno Man (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And for the God sake! Please read at least a non-Turkish book before jumping out of the blue and denounce others!--Larno Man (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Larno Man, why do you think so many Iranian contributors edit articles related to Turks? For example, I have been dealing with them in List of Turkic states for a while now. I see Babur article and see the same miserable attempts. On the other hand there is an article that can be an example for comic books, List of Iranic states and empires, that has not even received the attention of Turkish contributors. (Even the Ottoman Empire is listed.) Who is the aggressor? When people have no shame and can claim that the Seljuks were a "Persian speaking" dynasty there is not much that can be discussed with them. No one needs to read the history of Turks from Turkish sources. It is obvious why certain Iranian users insist on using encyclopedia Iranica as a source to inform the world about the history of Turkic peoples. Regarding the proof of the "point if you think Oghuz Turks your 100% ancestors", no one has such a burden. There is no Turkish, Oghuz, or Iranian DNA. It is all those little nationalists trying to make use of irrelevant "research data" to prove a non-point. Ethnicity has never and is not about DNA and no one should bother to even answer your pathetic arguments here. Furthermore, why should the article clarify anything about the citizens of Turkey only? Why leave the others out? You do not warrant further answers regarding the matters unrelated to the topic. What are so many Iranians trying to "inform" us on the history of Turks by using words such as "outdated"? No one needs books published in Turkey or an encyclopedia Turcica.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This section shouldn't be limited to Turks in Anatolia. It should be improved. It should include other Turkic peoples such as Turkmens, Azeris in Iran, Azeris in Rep. Azerbaijan, Ozbeks, etc. It is good to know to how extent different Turkic people are related to Oghuz Turks. Anyhow, you can't say that others shouldn't be interested in your history. You should thank that others from different perspectives contribute into Turkish related articles and challenge your tradition way of thinking about history. I don't know about others but I personally become interested in Turkish people and start studying on Turkish people when my Turkish friends were always telling me stories on 30,000-year Turkish civilization, Turkish origin for all languages of the world (Sun Theory), Turkish origin for Sumer civilization, Turkish Rumi, Turkish origin for Norooz (Nevruz), Turkish origin for Kurds, discovery of America by Turks, etc. --Larno Man (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And go and edit articles if you think they are poorly written. WP is not without errors. Maybe if Turkish scholars had spent their effort more effectively and had not spent their time and energy on fringe theories that nobody else takes it seriously, you might have had a Turkica now--Larno Man (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Larno Man, have a look at the page: http://www.answers.com/topic/turk and you can clearly see that the Seljuks and the Osmanli or Ottoman Turks are both members of the Oghuz confederations. Another one is http://original.britannica.com/eb/article-9056846/Oguz#265007.hook. One thing I want to clarify is that not every Turkishmen have the same Turkic roots, or Turkic roots. Many Turkic tribes had settled into Anatolia, i.e, Tatars, Kipchaks, Pechenegs, many more. If you are really interested in Turkish history, then please avoid people who doesn't know anything what they'are talking about (Sun Theory, Nevruz, etc), consider reading true scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkadirbeyoglu (talk • contribs) 10:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no argue on Oghuz origin of these dynasties. The argument is to what extent current Turkish people are related to Oghuz Turks. Just look at mirror and compare yourself with the statue of the Seljuq princess in the article. Do you look like her or Turkic speakers in Central Asia or you more like your neighbor Greeks, Iranians and Kurds? --Larno Man (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that what you say is a bit irrelevant. Yes, I do not quite look very similar to the princess, but we are talking about 40 generations of settlements and two empires lasting almost 900 years in a ruling on very wide geographic locations. It is very normal that upon time adaptations to the environment, "settled" lifestyle, climate, etc. as well as mixture with other Turkic tribes and to some degree non-Turkic tribes can cause changes in physical appearence in more than 1000 years. Moreover, I advise you to have a look at the Yoruk people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkadirbeyoglu (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No anthropology textbook supports the idea that environment adoption may make these radial changes only in 300-400 years. Look at pictures of Anatolian people in 17 century. They are depicted as Caucasian people, no Asian eyelid, no Mongolic feature. On the other hand look at Indians in America. They still retain most of their Asian features after 30,000 years. --Larno Man (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Which pictures are you talking about? You better look at the Ottoman "miniatures" where you may get a proper idea how people looked then. Indians had suffered genocides and the remaining Indians survived in the way that they greed to live in reservations, their own land for centuries, maybe thousands of years. No to compare with "wanderer" tribes that ruled on a very wide geography and interacted with many other tribes and cultures. And what 300-400 years, we are talking about more than 1000 years, maybe 1500 years or more. By the way is there evidence that Oghuz and Seldjuks looked like the Mongols? Just likeNostradamus1 stated, the Oghuz may not exactly classified as a Turko-Mongol people, but a Turkic tribe.

"to what extent current Turkish people are related to Oghuz Turks" is not the subject of the article. It sounds like you are on a mission to prove something. I do not know about the Oghuz princess but one thing I know is that the Oghuz are not exactly classified as a Turko-Mongol people. Also, some of the Turkic speaking Central Asians, say the Uzbeks, are Turkicized Mongols. So assuming that entirely Mongoloid looking Turks migrated to the west and questioning the ethnic authenticity of the contemporary Turks on this assumption is flawed from the start. Furthermore, the Turks were never a mono-ethnic group to begin with. This also applies to the Xiongnu and research supports that. There were the leaders and their followers who attached their loyalties to them. These became a Turkic people whose primary bond was their language.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, remaining pictures and status of Seljuks and other Oghuz Turks in Medival age such as that princess statue do testify their Mongolic-Asian features. I am not sure I got what you said. You mean that Oghuz were not classified as Turkish people. In this case, their decendants are not Turk as well. Some of your information was very new to me could you add them to the article?--Larno Man (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oghuz are not classified as Turko-Mongols but that is neither the subject nor that important. Also I do not know much about the picture. It does not say "princess", does it? The person in the picture sort of reminds me of my brother before he lost some weight. This article will not be the place for you to push you POV and agenda of proving who is a Turk and who is not. Perform your research elsewhere. The article is about a historical people who no longer exist.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, remove that part that Oghuz people are ancestors of Modern North Western Turks if this article is only on historical Oghuz. But, if you claim that they are fathers of modern Turks, there should be a section to examin this big claim.--Larno Man (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: here Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The book that was used as a source was listed in the references section and is not the same as the one you pointed. Nothing was copied from the URL indicated above. This appears to be a different edition of the same book named differently. I beileve the article was made worse by changing to the "According to the Book ..." style that selectively includes sentences. (What was served by making the book's name bold?) Secondly, if the administrator were a little more responsive to the complaints of some of us there wouldn't be a need to include sentences verbatim. If you read the heated arguments you'll notice a user insisting that I do not put unsourced material and that I am not a source. Sometimes even placing referenced material verbatim does not stop certain users and the administrators and/or the mediators are simply ineffective and lack knowledge on most topics they get involved. It's like the empowerment project for the college kids', retirees', and people with a lot of time in their hands. I'm not so sure about the WP anymore. Be more sensitive towards abusive users else the work of extremists becomes available to the masses making WP a vehicle for misinformation.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The book's title was in bold because I inadvertently formatted it incorrectly. Thank you for pointing that out; it has been corrected. Direct quotes of material need to be attributed. The text duplicates word for word another source. Even if it's a different edition, it is a copyright infringement to copy material directly from another source without attribution and quotation, as explained to you at your talk page. No matter how heated arguments here may become, Wikipedia's copyright policies have been crafted in respect of US law and must be followed for the good of the project. You are welcome to rewrite material in your own language, taking care not to follow so closely on the original that you create a derivative work. The material was changed in preference to the alternative, which was simply to remove it. That option, of course, remains open if the rephrasing does not suit the article as determined by contributors here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The articles I have been involved were somewhat controversial. The arguments and heated discussions left little room and time to focus on writing truly original phrases. But I have always uncluded the sources. (In this case the book is Nicole's Attila and the Huns listed in the references section.) At least I tried and discovered that WP is not for me. Time is precious and only fanatics will spend that much to ensure their point prevails. As I stated above unless the rules and/or their enforcement are improved WP will reflect what is contributed by the inexperienced, non-experts, and the extremists. People with little time but knowledge will not bother much with this. I think twice whether to read a WP article, say, when it comes up in a Google search now. That is sad and unfortunate.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I don't understand why people keep updating this picture here. The people who are direct descendants of Oghuz Turks are (at least linguistically and paternally) are Turks of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. And there is no one in any of these countries who look like this picture. I am replacing it with the picture of a girl from Turkmenistan.

And yes, it was proven that there are direct descendants of Xiongnu (from 200BC. Mongolia) living today in Turkey. We can only be proud with that. If you read the same article more carefully (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml), these people, Turkish ancestors, had mixed Caucasian and Asian features already from 200BC. From that time on, Turks conquered and assimilated numerous Iranian speaking tribes, such as Yuezhi, Tocharians, Sogdians, as well as, other Indo-European speakers, descendants of Schytians and Sarmatians, and countless Finno-Ugric tribes. The Seljuks were allready mixed with all of these. Some of the princes might have had mongoloid features (his mother could be Mongolian, or even Chinese! Turkish kings often received Chinese princeses).

If Iran was ruled by Turkish dynasties for a thousand years, we are sorry for the Iranian friends. But it wasn't Turks who destroyed your fire worshiping Sassanid Empired, it was the mighty armies of Umar ibn al-Khattāb. Too much humiliation, we know! But you should stop any hostility against our nation. There are already 20 million Azeri in Iran, and excluding the remaining 80 million living in Turkey and Azerbaijan. I am not counting yet Turkmenistan, Ozbekhstan, Kazakhstan... Hostility against such a great nation is not good for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sencer A (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Geography

The text in the Homeland in Transoxiana section: The In the 8th century, the Oghuz Turks made a new home and domain for themselves in the area between the Caspian and Aral seas, a region that is often referred to as Transoxiana.

Well as far as I know Transoxiana is in the east of Aral lake between Amu Derya and Syr Derya. So I think that the text in that section should be reviewed.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Turkic is an iranian-turkic creole language and oghuz turkic is an iranized turkico-iranian.

Turkic is an iranian-turkic creole language and oghuz turkic is an iranized turkico-iranian.

In the site nostratica.ru http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(250)Clauson_against.pdf http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(206)Greenberg%20-%20Altaic%20Exists.pdf http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(203)Nostratic%20and%20altaic.pdf http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(251)Vovin%20Controversy.pdf

they give iranian etymologies to turkic numbers. gi=>eki tse=>uthse tshorts=>tört pandj=>bish atshish=>alti and so on

Non oghuz turkic languages have rather an irano-altaic conjugation endings. kor-gen-men=see-past suffixe-first person(likely borrowed from iranic)ending.

But in oghuz turkic it became gor-d-um=see-iranian past suffixe d-iranian first person ending.

if you look to these maps below,you could easily see that central asia was inhabitated by iranian speaking populations(saka,chorasmians,dahae,margians,bactrians,soghds..)and of course these tribes did not disappear but merged with turkic newcomers as proven by genetic tests and also by the presence of a caucasoid phenotype and caucasoid phenotype influences amongst central asian turks.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/East-Hem_323bc.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/East-Hem_200bc.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/East-Hem_600ad.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/East-Hem_700ad.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/East-Hem_800ad.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/East-Hem_900ad.jpg

john L.Drake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.81.84 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

NO, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT NON-OGHUZ TURKIC DIALECTS. In non-Oghuz Turkic, The word "körgenmen" means "I have seen" NOT "I saw". Modern Oghuz dialects have no Present Perfect Tense but old Oghuz had; the word "göryenben" means "I have seen" in old Anatolian Turkish. If you want to say "I saw" in non-Oghuz Turkic, you must say "kördüm" instead of "körgenmen".

Some Examples;

NON-OGHUZ TURKIC => ENGLISH => OGHUZ TURKIC

kel-gen-men => i've come => gel-yen-min (Old Oghuz)
yığla-gan-sın => you've cried => ağla-yan-sın (O.O.)
tut-gan => he/she/it has held => tut-yan (O.O.)
bas-gan-mız => we've stepped/pressed => bas-yan-ız (O.O.)
tab-gan-sız => you(plural) have found => tap-yan-sız (O.O.)
ket-gen-der => they've gone = git-yen-ler (O.O.)
.................................................................
tüshün-dü-m => i understood = düshün-dü-m
söyle-di-n => you said => söyle-di-n
bashta-dı => he/she/it began = bashla-dı
böl-dü-k => we divided => böl-dü-k
al-dı-nız => you(plural)took/get => al-dı-nız
ur-du-lar => they struck/hitted => ur-du-lar

"Turkmen" comes from the iranian word torkmand/torkman which in persian means "they became turk" ie they(the iranians of central asia)have been turkified.

"Turkmen" comes from the iranian word torkmand/torkman which in persian means "they became turk" ie they(the iranians of central asia)have been turkified.

john L.Drake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.81.84 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

sipahi's comment

you are funny. iranian?? Turks is turkic people. and turks is white but iranians black face. am I wrong? Sipahi1453 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oghuz today

They were mixed with other peoples but they exist today, for sure. They are not like Hittites. Kavas (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

tagged

This article fully contradicts modern scholarly encyclopedias. The Oghuz (or Ghuz) were a historical nomadic confederation in Central Asia who later moved to Iran and Anatolia and transmitted the Oghuz languages to these regions. There are no "Oghuz" today, so this article is totally unsourced POV in this regard. Please see this scholarly article. I have therefore tagged the current version because it is unscholarly, unsourced, and POV. Tajik (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC) What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-Oguz_Language_World.png ? The people living in the regions indiciated in the map can be understand each other's language to some extent, but they cannot understand other Turkic languages like Kazakh language at all. Are the people in indicated in this map are historical like Hitites? ?Kavas (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference is the Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/425909/Oguz say that some sources use the "Oghuz" word for the peoples indicated in the map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-Oguz_Language_World.png.Kavas (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

2/3

2 out of the 3 images are very religious people. It is obvious that they were added intentionally. --144.122.250.209 (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The turkic people in Iran

A big question... Is there anybody who can present reliable sources that claim the turkic speaking people in Iran are from turkic ethnicity, because I have sources, that say they are Iranian. Aregakn (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Iranian arabs are iranian people and they are not persian. iran is not persia. iran is a geographical name. What is iranian? what is iran? Hom many people live in iran? (pers, azeri, arab, turkmen, qashqai) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsxedczaq (talk • contribs) 00:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A big discussion on talk:Turkic peoples related to this article as well

It is needed for all that have Reliable sources on matters to participate in talk. The discussion is named "The Turkic ethnicities, Turkic languages and the population data in the article". Please contribute. Aregakn (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)