Talk:Cumans

Old talk

I removed Béla Kun from the list of people whose surnames are related to the Cumans until someone can offer proof that his last name isn't simply a variation of Cohen.

Bratici

Bassarab and Tihomir are NOT CUMANS, they were romanian although they bore names of Cuman origin. Romanian political entities are mentioned since 1247 whilst there is no written or archaeological evidence of a si--Vargatamas (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)gnificant Cuman population or political entity in the region between Carpathians and Danube at that time. Undoubtedly, they had a great influence when they dominated this space in the XIIth century, hence the Cuman names of Bassarab and Tihomir. Saying that Bassarab and Tihomir are Cuman warlords, only by a name basis is like saying King George of England was a Greek because he has a name of Greek origin.

Moreover THE CUMANS DID NOT FOUD WALLACHIA. Wallachia was founded by native romanians

By the way, the fact that Bassarab and Tihomir were romanians and not cumans is a certainty. I believe the person who's editing this article should study this problem thoroughly i.e The Diploma of The Joannites from 1247, archaeological indications regarding Cuman ethnic population in rapport with the romanian one and so on.

I couldn't have agreed more.84.234.110.198 13:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a note to add. Tihomir is purely Serbian name, not Romanian. It derives from two Serbian words: TIH =quiet and MIR = peace. Thank you for re-considering this. Also did you know that there is a village in Serbia named Kumane (Cuman etimology) as well as a city of Kumanovo (meaning: Cuman's) in today's Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? Perhaps it will mean something to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.127.30 (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have any reliable sources to back this up? No original research. Also, why are you addressing a comment written in 2006? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed this statement: However taking into account that the two of them ruled over territories formerly reigned by the Romanian leaders mentioned in the Diploma of the Joannites from 1247, and that there is no archeological evidence to sustain the continuous presence of a Cuman population, only Hungarian documents mentioning a toll-paying Wallachian population, it is quite obvious that Tihomir and Basarab I were as Romanian as the population they reigned over). This statement is an POV opinion not based on any sound facts. According to mainstream historians there are nothing obvoius about history of Vallachia before 1300 AD. In fact population of present day Vallachia an Moldavia was ethnicaly mixed during Middle Ages: Romanian, Slavonic and Turkic. Presence of hundreds names of Turkic origin in Romania, names of rulers and nobility, as well as extremally strong presence of Slavonic elements in ROmanian language and culture strongly support this thesis. It is quite possibly that ruling class was of Turkic, nomad, origin. Nomads frequently used to subdue more settled population. By the way Tihomir is not Turkic name but Slavonic one. Yeti 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Tihomir is a actually a Cuman name: Tok Temur (Strong Iron). You'd better check this thoroughly as it obvious you did not bother to do that when you posted that. Sound facts that show this is not a personal opinion:

1.In 1247 the diploma of the joannites mentions 4 rulers identified as "wallachs": Ioan (John), Farkas (the hungarian name for the slavonic "Valcea"=Wolf), Seneslau (in hungarian document Szanislo) and Litovoi. The document makes a difference between this toll paying rulers and other slavonic and turkic populations that were scattered across this space.

2.The wallachian population usually lived in hill regions, not on open fields like slavonic and turkic populations. Historians such as Keith Higgins agree on the fact that the Mongolic invasion from 1241 scattered the slavonic and turcik populations on the romanian plains allowing the wallachians to fill the political vacuum in that region. Moreover, most of the cumans refugeed in Hungary after the crushing of their state, led by Kuthan.

3.As i said earlier, the strong name influence the cuman and slavs exercised upon romanian population does not indicate that the ruling class was of that ethnic origin. This thesis is as absurd as saying that King George of England is a Greek just by having a greek name or that Jonathan Swift was a Jewish just because it has a Jewish name. If we follow this premise, then user Yeti is obviously a tibetan.

4.Nomad usually used to subdue the more settled population, i agree, but they usually were assimilated by the settled populations who were more culturally advanced than them. That is why the Bulgarians, turkic people at origin, are now a slavonic people. And there are plenty examples of this kind.

5. Hungarian documents mention in these region a toll-paying wallachian population (see the conflict between Litovoi and Laszlo IV). Does this not ring the bell? the hungarian chroncles always make a difference between the slavs and wallachs during this century unlike previous centuries. Of course the population was mixed(as in any other state or region of the globe) but the romanian were the majority.

Merge?

Cumania has a lot of cited material that deals with Cuman as opposed to the territory. Should these articles be merged?--tufkaa 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

yep.The 89 guy 08:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I would merge both articles into Kypchak. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think an article on the area is warranted (much like Severia). However, much information from this article should be moved to Severians and or as you suggested Kypchaks.--tufkaa 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Support --Timurberk 08:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I really think this article should be merged into the Kipchaks one. After all, aren't both terms different denominations for the same people? Rsazevedo (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose First of all we have an article named "Cumania" if we move Cumans to Kypchak that article will remain orphan. Also, from what I understand Cumans were only the Western Kypchaks, so it might be a difference there. Also Western Kypchaks were called "Cumans" (or derived term) by Turks, Romanians, Bulgarians, and Hungarians. Moving that to Kypchaks seems a little bit artificial since nobody in those areas knows them by that name. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Support Separating the Cumans and the Kipchaks would only be misleading and artificial. What the Hungarians called Cumans were called the Kipchaks by the Turks, and Polovtsy by the Russians. All three names point to the same people. In order to have a complete article all names should be mentioned in the right context. For example, Kutan the Kipchak chief emigrated with forty thousand "huts" to Hungary where he converted to Christianity. I am surprised his name is not even mentioned in the article which is a very interesting topic.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. It seems the view that the Kypchaks and Cumans are synonyms is not universal. For instance, I see that Denis Sinor, The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, p. 178, Cambridge University Press says:

"The precise relationship of the Cumans to the Kipchaks is unclear". bogdan (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the veridicity of the source I quoted above, but even if it's not a common view, I believe that there should be an article about the Kypchaks/Cumans in Central Europe and the Balkans (they had a rather important role for a couple of centuries in Bulgaria, Hungary, Wallachia and Moldavia) Kypchaks has a rather great scope and I think that it should be left as the main article and this article as a subarticle, talking only about their tribes that lived in the Balkans. How it should be named it's up to be decided. Probably more than 90% of sources about the Balkans use the name "Cumans". bogdan (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated the separation of Cumans and Kipchaks would be artificial. It sounds like the Pamirian origin theory of Bulgars that is based on Bulgarian ethno-nationalistic insecurities. I will find you multiple-sources that state that the Cumans and Kipchaks are one and the same people. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

English Name

I changed the English name, because that is how my Atlas puts them at.

Cumania

I would merge Kypchak to Cuman, since Kypchak is a modern term based on the self determination of the today assumed descendants (also Turkmens and Kazaks, who does not really have to do with Cumans apart from far relation), and not 100% the same. Lke British is today the Anglo-Saxon population, but 1500 years ago the non-Anglo-Saxon Celtic population (Arthur).

It makes sense to merge Russian and Balkan history to one article.

To the discussion above the topic is far not closed. Hungarian historians know no Wallachians before 12th century in later Wallachia. But the above writer is right, Cumans did not live in Wallachia, because the term is refers to the Today Romanian former Vlach/Wallachs.

Tihomir sounds unfortunately Slavic, Temur, Demir etc in Turk comes from Persian by the way.

But definitely the prices might be Cumans according to non-Romanian historians... Please, leave the discussion open to the findings of the next 50 years as compromise.--Vargatamas 20:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Demir, Temur, Temir and Timur are Turkic names and not persian. Please do not write nonsense. Orrin_73 07:20, 11 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrin 73 (talk • contribs)

Iyi aksamlar, it is not necessarily nonsense. Turkish has many loanwords from Arabic (check verbs with etmek) and from Persian (e.g. Carsamba, Persembe, Kale, etc. ) I try to demosnstrate from google checked a Persian (Tadzik, etc also ok) dictionary key word Timur (it is not bad, all lnguages have from Latin, Greek, or tomatl, chocolatl from Nahuatl, or in Hungarian there are Slavic words - patak, asztal, etc or Turkish/Cuman csizma=cizme, teve=deve, zseb=ceb etc, and does not mean it would be meaningless in Turkish):

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/search3advanced?dbname=steingass&query=timur&matchtype=exact&display=utf8 6. تمر بلیغ timur-balīg̠ẖ : (page 324)

تمر tamr, Ripe date;--tamri gujrāt, Red tamarind;--tamri hindī, Tamarind.

تمر بلیغ timur-balīg̠ẖ T تمر بلیغ timur-balīg̠ẖ, Iron-bow, surname of the Seljuk prince Duqāq.

تمرة tamrat, tamra A تمرة tamrat, tamra, A single date.

--Vargatamas 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Iyi aksamlar Vargatamas! I think the word "Timur" (or "Temur", "Demir", ... etc.) is purely Turcic. If it is also in Persian, I believe that's because it was loaned from a Turcic language. The link you have sent does not say anything about the ethymology of the word "Timur". Unfortunately, I could not find a website describing the ethymology of this word. But I have not seen any ethymologist who claims that it was of Persian origin either. You should show us a stronger proof of your claim.

Polovtsian

The alternate name "Polvtsian" has been taken out of the introduction but the link for the term still directs here. Could people who know more about the subject decide whether this should be the case or whether the term is better directed here or to Palóc. If the decision is that it should link here, I think we need the term to reappear in the heading or it will be confusing.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed: The other Cuman group in Hungary is the Palóc group, the name deriving from the Slav Polovetz. They live in northern Hungary and current Slovakia and have a specific dialect. Their Cuman origin is not documented as is the other two Cuman territories, but their name derives from the above word. They have a very special "a" sound close to Turkish "a", unlike Hungarian pronunciation.

This is a mistake. Palóc group (and Matyó group) are slaven, they changed for Hungarian language. --89.133.129.67 (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Open Question

Please leave the question open until the origin of Kumani / Cumani is cleared. The place where this Wikipedia article shows their alkukoti = urheimat of Poljevoi was also inhabited by Obi (Great River) Ugrians, Hanti, Mansi and Hungarians. Of these three, Hungarians are placed in several Wikipedia articles to have lived also in south eastern slopes of Urali and the Hanti and Mansi north of them, mainly on the area following Obi and Irtish Rivers. Where they still lives today (2008). If Polovoi -> Polovetsi -> Polovtsi / Polovtsy people would have had only Türkic roots they would have include in their name reminiscences of Seber Ak (Sibir White) form in way or other, which would have connected them to Tatars. In fact, valkia / valkea / valgie is also Finno Ugrian name for white not susi (wolf). Then there is connection between names Kipchak and Sakaliba, the question far from solved. They can be also said to be Kuumanni (Moonman) what in turn could describe their skins light colour like ghost of moon. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.115.5 (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin

According to my relative (and reknowned Anthropoligist) Richley H. Crapo, the Cumani were descendants of the Sarmatians of Iran. Just a thought. Richley is/was (I don't know if he's still kicking) an expert at Geneaology, and could trace anyone's ancestry based on disambiguations of their last names and two or three generations before. For instance, our last name is Crapo. He was able to deduce that Crapo is not an actual name, but a disambiguation of the french word Crapaud which means "Frog" or "Toad". Go figure, freakin' Ellis Island cutoms agents....who knows what the hell my actual last name is.

Shawn Crapo (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends what language Sarmatians spoke. Cumans were definitive Turks. 1) Codex Cumanicus with vocabulary survived. 2) in Hungarian Cuman words (like komondor = sort of dog, big white one) can be derived from Turkish 3) Tatars (Kazan and Crimean), Gagauz, Bashkirs still speak Turkish, although they changed name from Cuman and became Tatar from Gengiz Khan.

Kazan Tatars are actually most definitely either pure Bulgars or heavily descended from them. There are 2 theories: that they are Bulgars, unchanged from the time of the conquest, and did not mix with the Mongols, Cumans and Kipchaks; the second theory is that they mixed with the Cumans and Kipchaks. The Kazan Tatars themselves insist that they didnt mix and are Bulgars, as evident on numerous forum posts written by Tatars and Kazan city graffity with sentences such as "Bulgaria is alive" on the streets. All in all, they obviously didnt mix with the Mongols as they look caucasian without asian feautures. The other tatars though (except Kazan and Volga Tatars) do have some Mongol mixture.

Sarmatians according to (weak) official theory spoke an Iranian language (see e.g. names at Ammianus Marcellinus for Iagiges and Alans), so they cannot be related (or change the theory-like Turkish historians do).

--Vargatamas (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Vargatamas is right. If you compare the vocabulary in Codex Cumanicus with the vocabulary of the modern Turkish spoken in Anatolia, the words are surprisingly similar. Even one can understand the riddles of Cumans, which is a strong proof that they were Turkic. --Defrim (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Cumans were originally Iranic or Finnic, as they were described to be blond with blue eyes etc, so they couldnt have been pure Turkic (unless the Cumans were really non homogenous and a mixture of ethnicities -some then might have been blond and others black, brown hair) - it seems they mixed later with Turkic people and East Asians, as their genetics shows one East asian gene that is only found among Tibetans, Japanese and Siberians, their other genes are west Eurasian. Originally they might have had another language, but due to Turkic influence it then became Turkic. One thing is unclear though - Istvan Vassary says that they probably came east of the big bend of the Yellow River in China, it could be true but then how did Vassary deduce that? - they first seem to appear on the Russian steppes in the 10000's -the thing that is unclear is if their homeland was China (they werent Chinese), then from where did they get the Turkic influence? - werent the Xiongnu the only Turkic/Mongol group in the China area? The Sarmatian/Iranic theory shouldnt be totally be ignored, that their language was Turkic doenst necessarily prove beyond doubt that they were Turkic, thats why they could have been mixed - another ethnicity mixed with the Turkic people

Codex cumanicus cannot be the direct prove, because the book was completed circa 1330 CE,almost a 100 years after when the Cumans were defeated and dispersed by the mongols in 1237-1241 CE. Sure the book has many articles completed over years but that is a hot debate among the academics, and no one was certain about the exact time when particular articles of the book were written.Also the book was translated into two languages, one is Cuman and one is Persian, the word Cumania at this time means the land not the people, the word Turk was also very often misleading as many states would simply call all the nomadic people Turks.

The remaining Cumans were assimilated into the golden horde whose origins included the Kypchaks and mongols and kazan bulgars, other books suggest that cumans spoke similar language with Pechenegs, keep in mind the Pechenegs spoke Oghuz Turks, a different branch compare to Kypchak Turk, again on one was certain about the language spoken by the Pechenegs. Any way the existing evidences are all but speculations, there needs to be more evidence to determine the languages spoken by Cumans. But either way the Cumans were likely to be descended from samartians genetically, they may or may not adopted the turkic language (but the turkic language is likely to be the lingua franca of the Cuman-Kypchak confederation), spoken by the rulling elites. The Cumans were only loosely allied confederations of tribes as do the Kypchaks and each tribe were likely to persist their own culture and language, as happened when the Cumans fled to Hungary they were accompanied by large numbers of Iranic speaking Jassic people and the later seems just as numerous as the former. Also the Alans also living at the steppe north of caucasus, adjacent to the southern russian steppe, which is also a big tribe confederation and they certainly spkoe Iranic language.--Apzat (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Kumaani Origin

If they have links to Sarmataie (Sarmaatti) people, then why Finno Ugrian languages have Sarmaatti and Kumaani presenting totally two different heimos (tribes)? There is exactly clear describtion in old European sources where the Kumaanis lived. It took ten days ride (daily 40 km with a good horse), or was it by kameli from Petsenakki to Kumaani. They appear c.1000 AD in Russian history living south of Murdasi (Mordvins) between Tanais (Don) and Itil / Rava (Volga), the southern neighbours of Murdasi Burtta tribe. In the area is only these remnants in topography of Kumaani, the river names; Rúdna, Sivin and Sherboda. If one can link these names to any Persian dialect then the connection is possible, otherwise not. Secondly, why the Kumaanis had, as Onogurs (Hungarians) with them Tibetan shepard dogs? There are several links by Hungarian and Finnish professors to prove in linguistic researches; the Kumaanis spoke one of the Obi Ugrian language which was close to Hungarian, but not Hungarian. That close they understood each other without any transliteration of interprayers. Thirdly, they brought with them also kamelis (Camelus bactrianus) from Itil area to Erdely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.175.146 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kumans and Kipchaks are not the same nation

The Kumans and Kipchaks are not the same nation, not even ethnically.Read Cumans and Tatars on google books(the preview is enough to see that according to historians they are 2 different peoples). They joined pollitically only. The Kumans are said to have come east of the Huang He river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.226 (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Why do you people continue to remove the ethnicity section?. There are some valid points that should, under no circmstances, go unnoticed. These points clarly show the massive problem with the Turkic theory, which suggests that they were most probably not Turkic - you cant just say they were Turkic just because you want them to be and just because you conveniently avoid the problem of the theory, to make research easier and quicker (as is clearly happening with research of the Kumans). That is truly an amateur, close minded move which goes against the spirit of science and history. These points cant be dismissed until they are properly understood. The removal of this section shows ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.48.234 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

These are your own wild theories and you did not supply any valuable references that strenghten your theories. Please post only facts. I remove the ethnicity section. Their "race" is irrelevant anyway, if they speak a turkic language, they are turkic people. You are just a troll! Removed it! 95.223.187.171 (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You added your personal opinion again? (Ethnicity ) This is what you wrote in edit history: (Stupid, i dont need reference, i use common sense and intelligence to notice obvious and basic facts and put 2 and 2 together, what a common fool, cant you understand what I explained(ethnicity)?) Yes, we get your point, yet wikipedia is not a place where you can push through your unsuported theories and ideas.Your ethnicity section is unacceeptable. Removed again! Please, if you want to add encyclopedic contend,please only add those which are well researched and accepted by the scientific community and not what if.... some people believe...etc. Wikipedia should not be a platform for your personal opinion! 95.223.187.171 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Can an Admin lock this section? Someone (assumedly the first poster above) keeps adding original opinion-research that is not supported by mainstream historians, nor is any reference cited. I removed the OR and left the statement that is accepted by the vast majority of documented historians. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

General owner or watchdog of this article?

Can someone step forward who feels that they are more or less the owner/overseer of this article? Because it has some major problems! Uncited original research abounds. For instance (and this supposedly comes from a true reference), "Originally inhabiting eastern China (east of the Yellow River)..." EXCUSE ME?!??!? That makes the Cumans Han Chinese. No way, no how. While the precise origin is not known for sure, that they came from the central steppe is definitely known. That's just one example. I don't know if it is a problem with someone whose English is not very good or what, but technically, a great deal of this article is rubbish. Major revisions are needed and a watch put on it for vandalism. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

I have read the discussions and looked at the sources and i have to disagree here - Just because they lived in China does not make them Han Chinese - what kind of childish logic did you use?! As a matter of fact, it will make them the only Caucasian people in eastern asia at the time. With your logic I can say that if a German lives in Turkey, then he must be an ethnic Turk. The source is a real, scholarly source, if you had bothered to read it - it clearly states that the Cumans migrated, came from "east of the yellow river", I dont see what is difficult to understand in that statement. "More in line with mainstream scholars" - again you didn't bother to read the source - the author of the book: "Cumans and Tatars: Oriental warfare (can find it in google books) is a mainstream scholar. By the way, I have read the whole article and seen the discussions and saw all the edits from the past.. and particulary noticed the edits from some anonymous user saying that the Cumans could not have been Turkic simply because they were blond and blue eyed and I agree with him on that and on the fact that blond hair and blue eyes is impossible, genetically, in Turkic people - again what is not hard to understand in that statement - it really is logic, I am apalled at how you people lunged at him for saying that and have seen many similar incidents on wikipedia - wikipedia does now seem to be a pretty corrupt place, where people just dont use their common sense anymore

I adjusted the "Eastern China" statement to something more in line with mainstream scholars. If there is one instance of blonde, blue or green-eyed east Chinese peoples that has been documented, by all means, bring it forward. I don't have the previously cited reference, but my guess is that the text actually stated WEST of the Yellow river. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Again, unregistered user 41.132.178.5 continues to revert/restate unsupported, borderline-insane, wildly speculative Original Research on this article, despite many reverting his/her constant vandalism. His only excuse is that we are all somehow "Turks" - sorry, American German-English here, guy - who are looking for some sort of nationalist victory, I suppose. What that "win" might entail, I can't grasp. Anyway, WHOIS shows that this person is vandalizing from "African Network Information Center," and I cannot fathom what his motivation might be. In my opinion, an Admin or Super-Editor needs to step in on this situation. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

It is funny, how a group disappeared from the existence makes that big waves of feelings, like the Slovak-Hungarian debates.. But here are nobody hurt at least. I have to add this kuumanni theory sounds good, polovets means in Slavic also pale/white, and according to Gyarfas Istvan (see reference to his book on the Hungarian Cuman-Jasz authonomy in the article Jaziges, 5 volume from 1875 on intranet -in Hungarian- the most massive study ever since) they are Hungarians. I know only that they and the Patzinaks could speak each other (Anna Comnena). But for the ethnicity yuo have to start from Hungary I think. Elsewhere they are not that good documented in later ages. They were quite numerous till 15-16th century and extant till 18th due to the authonomious status. i have also a far family member considered Cuman in the village, so tradition live long, in the 1950s people kept it. Or Ady Endre wrote of himself "he was big, Cuman-eyed guy" The other way is the Codex Cumanicus in Venice.

the topic is not well studied.. good luck!

Linguistically Turkic

There is no need to add "linguistically" to the word Turkic because the Turkic peoples article it links to clearly defines Turkic as an ethno-linguistic group. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Not true - than why are there two major and different articles - one on Turkic people and the other on Turkic languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 05:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

User:146.232.75.208 has continued to add his/her opinion to this article in attempt to tell the reader what to think. Subverting referenced sentences to say what he/she wants it to say and not what the reference says, is original research. Also, continued unsourced assertions(opinions) of "blond hair and blue eyes" as a tool to argue against Turkic descent is also original research. Until the original research is removed the tag will remain. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an unfounded statment - I am not a vandal and not like the countless other people who push POV and vandalise pages - I try to add accuracy to pages, bring a more neutral point of view and bring problems or issues into light. I am in no way trying to tell people what to think - quite the opposite actually, as I present the problems and issues and it is up to the reader what to think. It is you who are telling us what to think, as you push sources which, in relation to this article only, are not of the best quality, as they do not acount for factors like the principle that blond hair and blue eyes dont occur in Turkic people (the same way that they dont occur in Chinese people) neither do they account for the fact that there is a possibility that their Turkic language could have resulted from Lingua Franca, so asserting they were Turkic (when in actual fact nothing is known for certain as there have not been genetic studies showing they were Turkic, but there has been genetic studies showing that they had predominantly Western Eurasian lineages (includind European genes) just from language is incomplete and not accurate as other factors are not accounted for. A more correct term would be (and accounting for the other factors described on top and in other places of the talk page) "Turkic speaking" and no, the term Turkic does not account for language only (someone said that Turkic is not just an ethnic term but also a liguistic term) - but then why is there two major seperate article on wikipedia - Turkic people and Turkic languages? Common knowledge like that blond hair does not naturally occur in Asians (unless they have been mixed somewhere down the line by Iranic or Caucasian people) does not need a source, its like asking for a source if blond hair really doesnt occur in Chinese people - that is accepted common knowledge - have you ever seen a ethnic Chinese with natural blond hair? And yes I am arguing against Turkic descent since the Turkic theory doesnt account for a number of factors and anomalies, and there are other views (how can Turkic theory be asserted as fact when no genetic studies have yet shown Turkic links? - I am bringing impoertant issues to light, that if not brought to light, then the page would have inaccuracy and error, as important things are not accounted for. There is a rule in wikipedia - "ignore all rules" that states that if rules go against common sense or contribute to errors in articles then they should be ignored - that rules is perfect for this case. If I am bringing important issues and problems (based on logic - so many will agree with my points here) into light then how can it be really called original research and be put on the same level as past cases of bad original research and vandalisim. Kansas Bear looks like he is really opposed tom any other views other than Turkic theory, to such an extent that he never discusses the problem itself (the points I made), but just throws and twists wiki rules at me, trying to make me seem erranous. He never comments or discusses the points I made - it seems he hasnt thought about anything, but just throwing wiki rules at me the whole time. I am bringing serious issues and points in the article that should not go unnoticed as that would contribute to general academic error etc. Also the validity and problems of sources in general for the Case of the Cuman people and is discussed on this talk page as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.50.83 (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why discuss anything with you? You refuse to remove your unsourced opinion(ie.edit-war). Your opinion is not supported by published sources. Your continued rant about "blond hair and blue eyes" is supposed to be the "end all be all" of evidence? Do you have a published, peer-reviewed source to support your opinion? I have a source from the University of Pennsylvania. The "source" you added says nothing about "blonde hair or blue eyes", which you added. Thus telling the reader what to think and also violates wikipedia rules concerning original research. I am only opposed to unpublished, non-peer reviewed "sources" as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

--User:Dontbesogullible (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2011 (GMT) Hi, the founder of modern Turkey was also "kuman" (as we call it) He was blonde and had blue eyes. he is a good example of how "Kumanlar" looked like.

>>>>>>If you are trying to say that Turks can have natural blond hair then you are wrong - you see- when the Ottoman Turks came to invade Anatolia they mixed with a lot of the caucasian population already there - mostly Greeks (Greeks and other caucasian people, including Iranic people in who blond hair and blue eyes can occur naturally)-these caucasian people were there for thousands of years before the ottoman and Seljuks came), which explains why some Turks are blond (as they mixed over hundreds of years with these caucasian people there). But blond hair and blue eyes does not occur naturally in Turks (such as the Oguz Turks), the same way that blond hair and blue eyes does not occur in Chinese people for example (have you seen a Chinese person with natural blond hair). The Turks of Turkey are Oguz Turks mixed largely with the original caucasian population of Anatolia (go look at Anatolia's history, incluing the time of the Byzantine Empire and subsequent Greek states and empires there and also of the Hittites, who it is said were also caucasian people). If you want to see pure Oguz Turks who are not mixed with anyone else (such as mixed with Greeks etc) then look at the Oguz Turks of Turkmenistan - these are the original, pure Oguz Turks - you will not see a natural blond among them (try looking), as blond hair does not occur naturally in these ancient people. Regards Smart Nomad (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So basically the Cumans might have not originally been Turkic (most probably they were not Turkic genetically). They were only Turkic in language. The simple fact that no genetic studies were ever done to prove or even suggest that thet were Turkic genetically shows it - as a matter of fact the only genetic studies on some of their remains shows that they had a significant number of European genes. Also, all the countries they went to - the natives of those countries never called them Turkic - the Hungarians and Bulgarians never called them Turkic or ever reported any Turkic features. The fact that most of them were reported blond and with blue eyes says it all - this is the most important evidence and clue that we have that they were most probably not Turkic, we shouldnt ignore this important evidence. Regards Smart Nomad (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So basically your opinion, again, means more than a published source, which you believe allows you to mitigate a referenced sentence. Pity you keep missing this;

Bartusis, Mark C., The late Byzantine army: arms and society, 1204-1453, (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992), 26; "Around 1239 a large group of Cumans-- a Turkic people of the steppes....".

Robert Lee Wolff: "The 'Second Bulgarian Empire.' Its Origin and History to 1204" (Speculum, Volume 24, Issue 2 (Apr., 1949), 179; Thereafter, the influx of Pechenegs and Cumans turned Bulgaria into a battleground between Byzantium and these Turkish tribes... --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

--Dontbesogullible (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2011 (GMT) Hello. You must be correct in your "assumption" but it is subjective. if you really think they were not Turkic, please come with evidences and credible references. Not assumtions. and we will HAPPILY say so in the article.

You see that is where you are wrong - you cannot say it is subjective - how can the fact that blond hair and blue eyes does not naturally occur in Turkic people, be subjective? It is common knowledge, the same way that blond hair and blue eyes does not occur naturally in Chinese people, its just genetics thats all. I have more to say on this. How can you want a source for this - are you for real? You want a source stating that blond hair and blue eyes does not naturally occur in Turkic peoples - why dont you just see some images on the internet or ask someone - so you want a source for accepted and comon knowledge as that? - that makes no sense. In the beginning of the 20th century some scholars (originally probably a handful at most) said the Kumans were Turkic only on the grounds that they spoke a Turkic language - as a matter of fact that is the only evidence that they were Turkic and thats it, no more (you cant use evidence like that they lived on the steppe and therefore they were Turkic, because Iranic people also lived on the step and they are not Turkic). So all the evidence to support that they were ethnically (genetically) Turkic is there language - that is simply not enough. While for the non Turkic theory we have much more deep, substantial and actually obvious evidence - their appearance and how they were described by all the nations that met them. Not once ever did those nations refer to them as Turks (for example the Byzantines called the Magyars "Turkoui" but thay didnt use that name for the Cumans. You say come up with evidence - I dont need to as the strongest most obvious evidence was already here from the start - their appearance and how they were described. I simply cant fathom what is so hard to understand here? - its not rocket science or anything? You are not thinking about any of this at all. Back to those hanfull of researchers in the beginnign of the 20th that originally said the Cumans were Turkic - they obviously did not do lots of thinking (about their haor coulour and eye colour) or they did not know at the time perhaps, about all the accounts and reports of the Cumans being described as blond and blue eyed and so they just used the linguistic evidence. After those original handfull of researchers others came and studied ancient cultures and Turkology and when they came across the matter of the Cumans they simply repeated what the original researchers said (without actually stopping to think and examining the evidence)- that they were Turkic - when these researchers established that thoery() they only used linguistic evidence and not the obvious evidence of appearance and old accounts - so the theory, since it doesnt inorporate or take into account other evidence, and just ignores it (like their appearance) - is not a complete or substantiated theory, it is a weak theory as it doesnt take into account other evidence and only makes use of one type of evidence - their language - that is subjective, that is assumptions. So what, are we just supposed to blindly accept theories (unsubstantiated-where no incorporation of other accounts and evidence takes place) without thinking? That will just lead to academic error at the very least - it will lead to wrong ideas and wrong facts. That they were (ethnically Turkic) does not really make lots of sense, it is much safer to say that they were linguistically Turkic (as from all I said above there is a substantial chance that they were not Turkic ethnically) - if we say that (linguistically Turkic), then we dont take chances to assert any facts about their ethnicity. Like I said, based on appearance and the genetic studies that they did on some remains, it really points to a non Turkic ethnicity for the Cumans Regards Smart Nomad (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Also there is a rule: ignore all rules, which basically means that if something goes against logic and common sense than you can ignore it-like that the Cumans were ethnically Turkic. Smart Nomad (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Blonde hair and blue eyes occur naturally in Turkic people.[1][2] Her hair will probably darken as she matures, but that's a common feature of blonde hair (see Blonde_hair#Relation_to_age). You can find naturally blonde hair in many places.[3] Just because it is most common in Europeans doesn't mean they have a patent on it. As for Cumans, they were probably just as genetically mixed as every steppe tribe was. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That is where you are wrong (maybe you dont know much of the history of the dark and middle ages or something) - these people that you just showed me are extrmely few and rare occurances, and you cannot at all say that is naturally blond in the real sense - these people obviously are mixed somewhere down the line with caucasians or Iranic people (yes blond hair and blue eyes does occur naturally in Iranic people, as has been reported many many times from the past, but much more so in ancient times than now, as now they have mixed (some not all) with Azeri Turks and Arabs). Like I said you will never ever find blond Turkmen, Mongol or Chinese races with blond hair (for it to occurnaturally) there needs to be a substantial amount of occurances in the race, not just these 2 extremely rare (and mixed) cases which you showed me. I hope you understand what I am trying to explain (its not actually hard to explain). Kind regards Smart Nomad (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on genetics or Turks but as the sources clearly state that they are Turkish, it is against WP:V and WP:OR to use our own opinions or views to state differently. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the ignore all rules rule of wikipedia, things which go against common sense and ruin the wikipedia by adding things which dont make sense, can be ignored and changes. Please read all of the above carefully. Blond hair does not occur naturally in Turkic people, so there is a good chance the Cumans were not Turkic. So it is better and safer to say they were linguistically Turkic, as saying they were ethnically Turkic ignores a lot of evidence and reports on their appearance. By saying they were linguistically Turkic, we dont then push unproven theories (yes they are theories as nothing is proven, theories based on linguistics) as though they were a fact and leave the section for multiple possibilites (such as different ethnicities). That wouold then be fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

IAR is not a trump card that can be used to turn the facts around - there are four reliable sources that say "Turkish", and there is a strong consensus to keep Wikipedia's content verifiable. Why don't you go find sources that support your opinion, instead of repeating your own thoughts? Zakhalesh (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No, but that rule works here.It is not my opinion and thoughts but commonly known (and pretty obvious) that blond hair (and any other colour other than brown) does not occur naturally in Turkic people - how is that my own thoughts when it is a reality and so obvious. All that I am doing is using the most important evidence on their ethnicity - their appearance - what is wrong with that. Why this does not appear on sources and why sources are not really applicable in this specific case (ethnicity) - I already explained that previously, above - on how scholars repeat theories of a handful of original researchers over and over and how they are not making any use or integrating into their theories the appearance of the Cumans - cant you people think or something? - is all this very hard to grasp? (when its obvious). Their appearance and the fact that blonde hair does not naturally occur in Turkic people are not my own thoughts.

Regards Smart Nomad (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't worth it to waste time arguing with someone about whether blonde hair in X people exists naturally or not when the person respects a vague notion of common sense over scientific data and expert opinion. When shown pictures of actual appearance, it is dismissed. It isn't that someone spraypainted the hair color, which, by common sense, would be unnatural. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>Stacy, do you know who the Yuezhi and Tocharians are? They were caucasian people that lived in Asia. The pictures that you showed me furthers nothing about your point that blond hair can naturally occur in asian and turkic people - it cant, unless there was mixture with caucasian people. The pictures are not of asians with natural blond hair - they are asian who are descended (obviously, as they have caucasian features of light hair and eyes) from caucasian people be it hundreds or thousands of years ago. It seems you dont know about the fact that caucasian people existed in asia - the tocharians and yuezhi, as well as (will get source later for thenews article>>) a couple of legends of a lost roman legion that ended up in china - where in the news article which I saw a chinese man was puzzled why he had blond hair, which by the way - he said the other people in the village were puzzled and called it unnatural - why would they feel like this (the village people) if blond hair was a natural occurance in asians as you are trying to say? Also, the chinese man later heard from others (and is not against it) the legend of the roman legion. So what is so hard to understand that those blond asians in the pictures which you showed me are descended from either: Russians (probably from the russian empire), cumans (cumans were in asia), tocharians, yuezhi? There has even be a find of the Tarim mummies who were caucasian and had red hair, which goes to show that there was a significant caucasian presence in asia in the past, from which these asians with blond hair get their genes. You seem to not know this history, so before you say such comments read this hostory first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

>>>>>>>It isnt a vague notion of common sense - that you people are intellectually incompetent and dont know suchbasic things such as that blond hair DOES NOT occur in Africans, Asians and South American populations is your fault and nobody elses - so dont say that there is no poin in arguing with me, rather there is no point in arguing with you - all you people's arguments are unsubstantiated and have, lets face it - no reasoning. How can you have reasoning since you ignore the most obvious and best evidence we have to describe their ethnicity - their appearance Of course I respect common sense over "scientific data" (there is no scientific data showing they were Turkish, only a theory, based on linguistics; the only scietific data available(one of the sources) shows European genes - and that goes along with the descriptions of them having blonde hair - and blonde hair only occurs naturally in caucasian people - if you want to argue agains that then you shouldseriously consider doing some basic research of your own on human genetics, or asking people questions, because if you didnt know that then you have no right to argue here, because you dont know what you are talking about) About the pictures - if you actually bothered to read what I said about those pictures then you wouldnt have said that - let me repeat like I awlays do here - That is one example ever, an extremely rare one - and like I said that does not show that blonde hair occurs naturally in Asians - what it shows is that that girl obviosuly has caucasian genes in her (be it from iranic people, Cumans, Alexander's Greeks or Tocharians from antiquity). If that is natural then why dont we see more of this? We dont, because it doesnt occur naturally, or otherwise there would have been much, much more occurance of this, dont you think. Smart Nomad (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is "commonly known and obvious", why do the sources say otherwise? Wikipedia doesn't use original research or synthesis. Find sources that support your view. Zakhalesh (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained why all the sources regarding the Cumans are incompetent about the matter of their ethnicity - how can a source be valid and useful in this matter when they did not take the appearance of the Cumans - the most obvious and best evidence we have for their ethnicity. I mentioned above how the theory gets repeated over and over by researchers from the original handful few. I will say this - the only genetic studies done on them has not proven, or even suggested, that they were Turkic ethnically; on thecontrary they showed European genes. The only evidence that researchers use to say they were ethnically Turkic is their language - but for example, hispanics tribes accepted the romance language, but they were not Italian, basically to suggest an ethnicity from language alone is far from complete and erranous - the Iranians are not Arabs but use the Arabian script - what so are they Arabs now? If you are suggesting that it is not obvious that Turkic people do not have naturally blond hair than I recommend you do some serious researchers and talk to people knowledgeble of these matters to ask questions, because it seems you do not even know the basics. Also go look at pictures of pure, non mixed Turkic people like Oguz Turks in Turkmenistan and tell me if you see a blond - you will not, thats for sure. That they came from the China region also suggest that they could have been, or related to the Tocharians, since they were also blonds. Smart Nomad (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"I have already explained why all the sources regarding the Cumans are incompetent about the matter of their ethnicity..", no you haven't. Your only source that mentions "blond hair/blue eyes" also calls them a Turkish tribe(Robert Lee Wolff: "The 'Second Bulgarian Empire.' Its Origin and History to 1204" (Speculum, Volume 24, Issue 2 (Apr., 1949), 179; Thereafter, the influx of Pechenegs and Cumans turned Bulgaria into a battleground between Byzantium and these Turkish tribes.) Do you have evidence they were solely linguistically Turkic? I have 2 sources calling them Turkish/Turkic. Where is your source that states they were solely linguistically Turkic?? If you have no source your continued inclusion of that word "linguistic" is original research and disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>Actually I have explained it (over and over again, so please do not say I didnt explain-because that is an insult) The source saying that that had blond hair and blue eyes is enough since that means that, due to those caucasian only features, the Cumans in now way possible could have been ethnically Turkic - to argue against that reasoning - you are shooting yourself in the foot -the fact that blond hair and blue eyes does not occur in non caucasian people (or people of substantial caucasian descent) will never change. I took proper effort to explain in in the best, most simple way possible-I have created a logical argument with reasoning, making use of the best evidence we have available to explain their ethnicity-their appearance; something the "researchers" (so much for being a researcher) did not make use of) - that you do not want to listen or even think about it for a second - whose fault is that? As a matter of fact there should not even be an argument about this whole matter, I am pretty much surprised that there even is an argument - let me tell you this: you people never properly challenge or create a strong argument against the fact that blond hair does not naturally occur in non caucasian people (unless they are substantially mixed with caucasians) - it seems that you cant or dont know how, and that is fine, since I cant imagine someone arguing against that; all that you people ever do is constantly throw the wiki rules at me, blindly i should add, without stopping and thinking for yourself just for a second; one does not even have to explain what is wrong with that picture. I even used the ignore all rules wiki rule, but you people even challenge that - what is wrong with you people? There should not even be an argument about the fact that since they had caucasian only features, then they could not have been ethnically Turkic; you are making an 'argument' against this with no reasoning, and ignoring the most obvious and best evidence we have - so please do not say that I am wrong here. Smart Nomad (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

More evidence, The politicization of Islam: reconstructing identity, state, faith, and community in the late Ottoman state, by Kemal H. Karpat, Oxford University Press, 2001, page 341; "The Turko-Islamic group in the Balkans consisted mainly of ethnic Turks, who were roughly 60 percent of the total number of Muslims there from 1860 to 1878. Turkic tribes came into the Balkans in three waves. The first came from the north in the ninth through eleventh centuries. They were known as Pechenegs, Cumans, Uzes....".

Another, The Balkans: from Constantinople to communism, by Dennis P. Hupchick, Palgrave Macmillan 2002, page 11, "Oguz, Pecheneg and Cuman Turkic tribes....".

Another, Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture, Vol. 1, Richard C. Frucht, ABC-CLIO 2005, page 745, "Their adversaries to the north were the Turkic Cumans and Pechenegs..".

Another, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: D-K, by James Minahan - 2002, Greenwood Publishing 2002, page 533, "Nomadic Cumans, a Turkic people, conquered the region and for almost two centuries..".

Another, Agricultural and pastoral societies in ancient and classical history, by Michael Adas, Temple University Press 2001, page 79, "The Mongols, when seeking to split the Turkic Cumans....". --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)>>>>>>What evidence when it ignores other evidence, other more obvious, better evidence which(better to jusde ethnicity)Smart Nomad (talk)

>>>>>Like I said on top (oh my word, I must explain yet one more time - please listen carefully this time) - The theory (yes it is a theory since it hasnt been proved, or do you want to argue against this as well now?) that they are Turkic is based on their linguistics, and ignores the evidence of their appearance - which means that that theory is not very strong(which does not makes sense and shows poor research, because which proper scientist would ommit making use of more evidence in thei research?- and thus making their research and theories more substantiated, whose fault is it that they performed poor research and formation of theory - or do you want to argue against this thing as well now?). In the beginning there were probably a handfull of Turkologists studying the Cumans (we are talking about the Cumans here, not other tribes), and they somehows assumed, without making use of other evidence, that they were Turkic. So because the theory of their ethnicity was established earlier on by these researchers - when other researchers came along wanting to research about the Cumans and thus writing papers about them, when the topic or chapter came about their ethnicity they simply repeated what those original researchers said, becauwse the work was already done and those scietist thought that since that part of the work (theor ethnicity) was done by "scientists" then it has to be right and we dont have to challenge it, so they simply repeated, without thinking and carried on. Basically, it seems that no researcher has made use of the many descriptions of their appearance as evidence for what ethnicity they are - I dont even need to explain what is wrong with that picture. So because of what I said above, there is no point in you showing me all these source sating that they were Turkic, since in the particular regard about their ethnicity - they are incompetent. Whose fault is it that you people want to argue against these pretty obvious errors? 9with arguments that contain poor or no reasoning That section that I added, about them being possibly another ethnicity - because they had blond hair and blue eyes - it was only suggested that they could be another ethnicity, not pushed as thought it were a fact (much like how the Turkic theory is pushed as though it was proven fact), so what is possibly wrong with that? - nothing is wrong with that. By saing they were linguistically Turkic, I am in effect removing the error in saying as though it was a fact that they were ethnically Turkic (but still adding later that most scholars think that they were Turkic, so i have not removed that as you can see) and in effect leaving open possibilities that they were something else, ethnically (and its not wrong in saying that they were lingusitically Turkic either, because they were) By the way I explained somewhere above that it is nowhere near enough to say that, just because of their language, they must have been Turkic (and ignoring other evidence) - because, for example, the Spanish tribes in antiquity adopted the romance language from the Italians, but the Spanish people were themselves not Italian, and the Iranian people have a Arabian script, but they themsleves are not Iranians, the Bulgarians speak a Slavic language, but according to recent genetic studies (and from the fact that they look different to Slavic people) - it was shown that they are not Slavic, but close to Pamirian people (sources:latest talk page on Bulgars) - so do you see, at least from these examples, how it is wrong to assume that, only from linguistics, that the had to be ethnically Turkic. Me arguing against you guys is pointless if you are not willing to think about these things for a second, and actually use your brain, not merely repeating things mindlessly.

Regards Smart Nomad (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC) All that I have done here, apart from adding much more information and enlarging the page in other sections (and making the article better) is clarified their ethnicity and left it open for possibilites for another ethnicity, instead of stressing one thoery only as though it was a proven fact

Regards Smart Nomad (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough. If you actually are right, Smart Nomad, you'd have sources to verify it upon instead of having to rely on such arguments. Unless you have something more than your opinions/original thought/synthesis to add and still insist on making these changes, I'm going to report you for edit warring. There is a clear consensus that several reliable sources outweighs a single editor's "common sense". Zakhalesh (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What - are you ane expert on the matter now, the sole authority that can say:enough is enough? I can say exactly the same thing too - enough is enough! I will repeat this yet again (it seems like you did not read anything I have said, because if you did then you would have not said what u=you did) - what i said is not my opinions and assumptions, neither is it original thought or synthesis - clearly you just want to oppose everything I have said, without any argument of your own - none whatsoeverthis common sense is not mine either - let me repeat this again: The fact that blonde hair and blue eyes does not occur naturally in non caucasian peoples is not my opinions, it is not even an opinion if that exists 9go look at pictures, go read, neither is the fact that blonde hair and blue eyes does not occur in non caucasian people naturally, original thought or synthesis - because the fact of the matter remains - that those are not natural features in Turkic people - oh my word, how can you even argue against that, are you for real? That is like saying: It is original thought and an own opinion to say that blond hair and blue eyes does not occur naturally in Chinese people (or Japanese people for example) - (it is exactly the same reasoning) I mean, hello! - go and look at the features of those people and tell me i am wrong. like I said, go look at pictures of the pure Turks (the ones that have not mixed like the Turks of Turkey) - you will not find blond hair to occur naturaly (in other words a common occurance throughout the population) among those people - are you going to argue against this as well, because if you are than that is absurd. So how on earth, please explain to me, can it be original though, opinion and synthesis to say that the Cumans could not have been Turkic because they had non Turkic features such as blond hair? How is that original research, please explain to me (I understand that you cant, I mean how can you argue against that, but try to explain to me nonetheless). How can it be "mine" common sense, since it happens and still happens that blond hair does not naturally occur in Turkic or other Asian people - it is a natural phenomenon and occurance that those features 9blond haor, blue, green, grey) eyes does not naturally occur amongst those people. Here is again a good example of how you people have not got a real argument, let alone a logical one.How can you people continue to push sources that do not make use of the most obvious and easiest to use evidence - their appearance, thus these sources are non competent enough on this matter only (their ethnicity; they are fine in other matters). Like I said again - are we just supposed to follow blindly and never, for a second, think with our own mind? It has not been proven that they were ethnically Turkic (I mean how can you prove it, since only one evidence is made use of - their language, and since other evidence is ignored and since genetic evidence and research on their remains is tossed out also) I on the other hand do not push any ethnicity as though it was proven (because nothing isnt - or are you going to argue against this as well), I merely leave other possibilites open and let the reader be aware (otherwise he would not be aware if he has no knowledge on these matters) that the Turkic theory has flaws and that other ethnicities are possible. Yet again you are against my argument without any real, let alone logical, argument of your own. And you cannot call me a vandal either, since I added a lot of other useful stuff to the article over time - thus I have worked to make the article better - no where near being a vandal (and I am strongly opposed to vanadals)

Kind regards Smart Nomad (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have presented a very good (in my opinion) argument: WP:V. We have sources that clearly state that Cumans are Turkish. We have no source at all that states they're Turkist only linguistically. I haven't called you a vandal at any point. You, on the other hand, are getting a bit uncivil yourself by accusing me of inappropriate conduct, so calm down and try to realize that repeating the same stuff doesn't make it any more sound. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Two people from discussion have received edit war blocks. This is rather disturbing in my opinion, not the blocks but the fact that they were necessary. Let's not edit war further. To encourage a civilized discussion on this, I'm going to state this one more time: Cuman people are, per sources, Turkish. If Smart Nomad (or anyone else) doesn't agree, instead of repeating the same arguments again and again on this talk page, I encourage them to start a public discussion on an appropriate forum and accept whatever decision the discussion yields. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Also, the references on blond hair are all cited in the Blond article. Whether someone has it because of admixture or because it evolved somewhere down the line is irrelevant to the discussion of whether someone is Turkic or not. Appearance does not dictate ethnicity and genes evolve when people have sex. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity is quite often a matter of several things, some of them subjective, which further complicates matters if we wouldn't stick to the sources. I've no reason to believe why several sources would publish this information if it was "obviously wrong". Zakhalesh (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

I found many pictures of Cuman warriors (including a woman warrior) which i would like to upload, and I want to ask - is it fine if I upload an image I found in a forum about ancient warriors? - it doesnt say who drew them or where they come from, the people just posted them on the forum (drawings, but very good drawings) - it would be good for the article, to give an indication on how they looked like and what their clothes and armor were like etc. So I am just wondering if it is fine to upload a picture which comes from a forum site about ancient and medievel warriors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this subject. As a new editor you have a personal discussion page here User talk:146.232.75.208 where other editors can communicate with you. Please review it and consider becoming a registered user by choosing a user name. The contributions you make, like this one Cuman people#Famous or notable Cumans, or people of Cuman descent, in history need to have a source, otherwise they will be deleted even if they are true, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you want to use images, please provide a link and I'll be happy to review them because they are probably under copyright and can't be used without permission. I am very interested in finding images we can use and I'll be happy to work with you. USchick (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Crusades 1905.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Crusades 1905.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Crusades 1905.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

I've just cut out of the etymology section some prize unsourced WP:OR nonsense. How on earth has this edit managed to survive for over a month? DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

new pictures

http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/zgothic/miniatur/1301-350/08h_1300.html

about text : This collection of legends were made on the occasion of the Italian journey of Charles Robert of Anjou and the child Prince Andrew. Fragments of this collection can be found in the Vatican, in the Morgan Library, New York and in the Hermitage, St. Petersburg. The collection contains stories from the life of saints important for the House of Anjou. It was intended for children with brief text for the picture. The painters of the legendarium came from Bologna and they painted in the style of the Italian trecento.

The scenes represented on this page: Saint Ladislas and the Devil, Battle of Saint Ladislas with the Cumanians, Saint Ladislas is wounded, Conquering the Cumanian.

http://www.wga.hu/art/zgothic/miniatur/1301-350/08h_1300.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.168.214 (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Vallani/Valwe by Germans

Vallani is not right, Vallani (Wallani) was Skythes which settled in the Wallachia (ohg. "Vallahai", germ. "Wallachai"), the germans call this people Wallani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.65.47 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Unagreed

Can't agree of the statement that Shishmans and Asens dynasties were from the Cuman origin. There are speculations about the Asens and we dont know if they were bulgarians,vlachs /which in 13th century was actually Bulgarian teritories/ or cuman. Such statement about Asens and Shishmans are unclean and uncertain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Source added, many historians agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 19:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

List of notable Cumans

User:Smart Nomad expanded the list of notable cumans until it was an unwieldy 17kb list. It's an unnecessary list and unlike anything I've seen in a "people" article. User:Mgoodyear made the sensible decision to transfer the list to its own page: Notable people of Cuman descent. Smart Nomad reverted that edit. I took the list out saying it was better on a separate page. Smart Nomad reverted again. User:Edward321 took it out again indicating in his edit summary it was better on a separate page, and Smart Nomad reverted yet again. Smart Nomad, three editors now have said that the list is better on a separate page, please stop reverting. You say that you want to keep everything "in the same place", but WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is a basic plank of Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Smart Nomad, in the first instance, most of those on your exhaustive list do not fit WP:GNG for notability, or are tenuously linked to notables. The fact that you can find wikilinks to support the fact that so-and-so was married to a notable so-and-so or participated in this-or-that notable battle does not make the person you are listing notable in and of themselves. In the second instance, overlistification also applies (particularly 'Over-extensive Lists'). I could go on about WP:TOO LONG! but, finally, WP:CONSENSUS is also a basic plank.

As a consensus issue, I "Support" the removal of this list per reasons stated above. It should be developed on its own page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Redundant passages

The History section includes one telling of the settlement on the Hungarian plain, then another more detailed version follows. The two parts need to be blended together. I'm inserting sub-sections into the long History section, and for now I'm setting the second version into its own sub-section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blended the redundant passages together. I also moved parts of the Culture section into the History section and did a bit of rearranging within Culture. There were a number of other redundant passages that I removed. It's still a bit rough, but more organized and less repetitive now. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Great job, LP. I've compared the two versions and this is definitely under way to being better organised and intelligible. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

The section is confusing. Polans (Polanie) were a West-Slavic tribe. The name probably derives from the Polish word pole (planus-plain): field. Is there any relation between the Polans and the Polovtsians? Etymologically is there any relation between "plav" (blue) and polovtsian?Jestmoon(talk) 14:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Potential copyright violations

I've detected at least one source (Animal and Shaman: Ancient Religions of Central Asia - Julian Baldick pg 53 + which is barely even an attempt to paraphrase the original text in this article. All in all, the new content is highly florid and reads as though it were an overly-detailed study.

I've noted that this article has been developed quickly, and in great detail over the last month or so. I can only hope that I am mistaken as to its dubious development. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey User:Iryna_Harpy, I have adjusted the sentence... Kind Regards, Smart Nomad (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey? For someone who writes such poetic content, your communication skills are sadly lacking. I'm not merely concerned with the possibility of infringement on copyright. The style of writing is too colourful for encyclopaedic content per WP:NPOV. No, we don't want articles to be so dry as to bore readers: neither is it appropriate to adopt a "Ripping Yarns" tone. Whilst your hard work is appreciated, do you think you could modify the descriptors a tad? It's fine to use the occasional descriptive quote, but an historical novel is both too lengthy and a little heroic for the project. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Kind Regards, Smart Nomad (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC) By the way, 'hey' was meant to be just a casual greeting, no disrespect was intended at all...Smart Nomad (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I was being flippant. Unfortunately, as we all only communicate via proscribed missives, the tone usually doesn't translate well. No offence taken. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind. Thanks for understaning. Kind Regards, Smart Nomad (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Cuman=Cumanian?

This isn't clear, until the first instance of "cumanian" in ==History==. The article should be cleaned up.174.3.125.23 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian Incursions in Transylvania

This part of the article is as wrong as it gets. Hungarian incursions in Transylvania were non-existent, since it was an integer part of the Hungarian Kingdom, even when Romanians like to believe others. And it is way funnier, that the article contradicts itself, since the Cumans founding the later Romanian duchies have been vassals of the Hungarian kings, so it is a paradox circle-reference. On the other hand, Cumans had campaigns against Hungary before becoming vassals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orszag89 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you check the sources? This is taken from sources, not dreamed up. Smart Nomad (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cumans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140809204948/http://www.fphil.uniba.sk/fileadmin/user_upload/.../GLO-2012_Drobny.pdf to http://www.fphil.uniba.sk/fileadmin/user_upload/.../GLO-2012_Drobny.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No working archived captures. Appears to be an editor's own upload site, therefore PDF is unavailable for WP:V. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Intro issues

Thank you, Geekdiva for calling attention to the problems with the lead. I recently did a copy-editing run through the article and intended to work on the lead last, but I forgot to come back to it. There are a few areas of redundancy and lack of coherent flow, which I will work on. There are also a couple of issues with lists that may need attention:

• The opening sentence lists the name in 12 languages with over 20 variations. Can some or all of that be moved to the Name section? At present, it is difficult to scan down and find where the sentence continues.
• The long list of kingdoms and principalities is a problem, repeated over different paragraphs. Some of that can be blended together, but as the lead is a summary, perhaps some entities could be summed up by region.

There may also be aspects covered in the body that should be added to the lead. I'll work on a draft, but ideas regarding the languages list would be appreciated. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Etymology might be wrong

"The Cumans were reported to have had blond hair, fair skin and blue eyes (which set them apart from other groups and later puzzled historians),"
Yes indeed puzzling, because as Cambridge History of early Inner Asia notes "the Polovtsy (from Slavic polovyi "yellow, pale, pale-yellow," and probably a translation of Turkic Quman) in Rus' sources and taken from there into Western Slavic (Plauciy Plawci) and Hungarian (Paloc). German sources record: Falones, Phalagiy Valvi etc., again, interpretations of the Turkic ethnonym."
Not only that, not sure how they are blond hair and blue eyes when they migrated from Western Liao to the Southern Russian Steppe in early 11th century. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the etymology doesn't make sense given that in Slavic tradition they are depicted as distinctly Asiatic in appearance. There's an undeniable conflict in what the sources have to say about where they harked from, and being characterised as a Turkic people. It may be worth going through the sourcing for this section carefully to ensure that there's no WP:OR/WP:SYNTH going on. My knowledge of the morphology of 'pole' in Slavic linguistics is that it is a far more general term for an open grassland/fields/steppe, and that the words for straw (etc.) are derivatives of that meaning. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

How about putting the names in different languages in a note?

It hurts the lead's readability when the name is given in about twenty different languages right at the beginning. Put the names in a note. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Spinei and his remark ("Ulak" people)

"Ulak" may refer to Volga Bulgars (Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur called them like this). Fakirbakir (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Spinei undoubtedly defines them as being Romanians, rejecting other hypotheses. Do you have any reliable sources that might indicate that there is any controversy over his scholarship? The only other context I've encountered the use of 'ulaks' in is as term for couriers in the Ottoman Empire at a far later date. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cumans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721104537/http://www.arcanum.hu/mol/lpext.dll/fejer/152e/153a/1654?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0 to http://www.arcanum.hu/mol/lpext.dll/fejer/152e/153a/1654?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Extinct?

Okay, so this page is in the Extinct Ethnic Groups category, but this page features a picture of a Cuman from 2009, and there are more pictures like that on the Wikimedia Commons from an event called the "First World Meeting of Cumanians", an event which apparently doesn't have a page on Wikipedia, English or otherwise. So, are they extinct or not? And if they are extinct, what happened? Who were they absorbed into? 99.225.234.31 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)