Talk:Turkic migration

Comments
This is a rather bizarre article. It begins,

"The Turkic migration as defined in this article was the expansion of the Turkic peoples across most of Central Asia into Europe and the Middle East between the 6th and 11th centuries AD,"

but very little of the article is actually about this. Perhaps much of the material needs to be moved to a new article under a different name, or else this intro needs to be changed.

75.79.68.179 (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The factual material of the East Asian history contained in this article will be quite unfamiliar to many, particularly western, readers. Unfortunately, the style of the author appears somewhat rambling and unclear in places, with, for example, a number of untranslated Chinese terms. Dates and time periods, the exact relationship of the North Asian nomadic tribes to the successive Chinese dynasties need to be clarified. In particular, the formation of the Xiong-nu, and their identification with the historical Huns of the late Roman Empire is not nearly as clear-cut as the author would wish to imply. Geoff Powers (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is VERY, VERY inaccurate, needs more updated factual references!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.39.100 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulgars
Almost nothing is said about the Bulgars in this article. I understand that it is not clear whether they were of Turkic origin but this is the most popular theory and I think that the article should tell about them a little bit more. And one more thing - if Volga Bulgars are considered to be Hun's successors then all Bulgars in the Old Great Bulgaria are such because Volga Bulgars originated from them. I propose changing 'Volga Bulgars' in this context with simply 'Bulgars' which is more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gur4eto (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro
Great intro. Really clears up some misconceptions about the so-called "mass migrations" of the late classical and early medieval periods Hxseek (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Genetic researches!?
I understand, this article is about history but genetic researches completely disproved the Turkic migration into eastern Europe. Please add some citations in this article from those genetic researches. Maybe in a section called "Controversies".

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120136832/abstract
 * "The genetic variation observed among the Hungarians resembled closely that found in other European populations. The Hungarians could not be distinguished from the neighboring populations (e.g., the Austrians) any more than from their Finno-Ugric linguistic relatives."

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002929707616279
 * "It is interesting to note that Turks present shorter genetic distances to the British than to central Asians, even though the central Asian populations' samples in the present study speak Turkic languages."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/pcn3wtxnqngxlcql/
 * "A previous analysis of mtDNA variation in the Caucasus found that Indo-European-speaking Armenians and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians were more closely related genetically to other Caucasus populations (who speak Caucasian languages) than to other Indo-European or Turkic groups, respectively. Armenian and Azerbaijanian therefore represent language replacements, possibly via elite dominance involving primarily male migrants, in which case genetic relationships of Armenians and Azerbaijanians based on the Y-chromosome should more closely reflect their linguistic relationships."

http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5868/
 * "In particular, Gagauzes, a Turkic speaking population, show closer affinities not to other Turkic peoples, but to their geographical neighbors."

--6F-6C-63-61-79 (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

you are being wrong. yes genetic researches give us some information about steppe states but never forget that steppe confederations were always included a lot of ethnic groups. you can use genetic researches to prove something in a lot of issues, but not this.

by the way, it makes no sense to say gagauzes aren't turkic. look at their flama, their language, their traditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.14.25.144 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Khazars and Turgesh
This is a rather long article (more than 32 kbyte) But even than some stuff is missing. Where are Khazars and Turgesh (political offsprings of Göktürks) ? (No mention of Turgesh and only a link to Khazars.) I think for the article, they are much more important than people of ancient ages whose Turkic identity is debatable. In addition to Khazars and Turgesh, 11-12 century Turkic migrations to Ukraina (ie, Pechenegs, Kypchak etc.) and Turkic migrations to India during Islamic era also deserve a few words. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
no consensus. I don't see a refutation of Xashaiar's dichotomy so we'll let it stand. --rgpk (comment) 17:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Turkic migration → Turkic expansion — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC) The academic name for Turkic migrations is Turkic expansion, for example in Mallory, J. P. .--Kavas (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support for common name and fidelity to sources. Quigley (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Turkic expansion is an expression used for later developments. Turkic migration deals with migration of people from their homeland to where "there was previously no turkic speaking people". Thus "Turkic migration" and "turkic expansion" (both correct terminologies) refer to different topics. Xashaiar (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you explain what Turkic expansion is? And why is there a redirect from Turkic expansion to this page? Kavas (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The redirect is there because of 1. common mistake made by people in confusing these two things, 2. usually topics that are covered in other articles and no other special links exist for them are redirected to the existing detailed articles, ... (see why we redirect things). Finally "turkic expansion" would, I think, be something related to what later was called "Seljuq Empire expansion/formation". Xashaiar (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't "Seljuq Empire expansion/formation" be "Turkish expansion"? —  AjaxSmack   02:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking into account the specific meaning of "Turkish", I guess Turkic is relevant. Xashaiar (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Uyghurs section name
I feel like the short paragraph listed under the title "Uyghurs" is not really about Uyghurs, but more of a list of various Turkic groups, of which the Uyghurs are one group, barely mentioned. I propose either renaming the section to something like "Other Groups" or "Later Groups" as the first few words of the section imply, or attaching this short list to a different section. It seems too small to warrant its own large subheading like that. -Zhukant (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The Huns called themselves the Acatir
Where do you have any source for this? What "Huns" do you mean? Centrum99 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Hungarians called the Polovtsians Kuna. almost gunes Кунимаро Сэнгэ (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Equestrian nomads of the northeast section?
This section, especially the first paragraph and the first part of it, seems rather unprofessionally or un-academically written, and could use modification.

"The physical characteristics of populations of speakers of Turkic language stretch across a range as wide as the land they inhabit. The Turkic peoples in Europe look European - with the exception of some Crimean Tatars and Turkics in the Caucasus (Kumyks, Nogays, etc.) who look European+Northeast Asian, while Turkics in the Middle East resemble the peoples of the Middle East, those in Central Asia mostly look mixed but have mostly northeast Asian features. Turkics in northeast Asia resemble populations in that region. In trying to answer such questions as what "race" were the Proto-Turkic speakers, neither anthropometric nor genetic studies have been of much assistance to date. What few DNA analyses have been done arrive at the problem as an answer: affinity to primarily western populations in the west, eastern in the east, and a mixture on a gradient from east to west or vice versa in between.[2] These biological circumstances suggest that racial evolution over the region is earlier than can be considered in the time of the distribution of languages; i.e., the languages may have evolved among populations that were already mixed."

It's making rather broad claims without sources to back it, and in some ways almost sounds more like a post in some amateur anthro-forum than an encyclopedic entry, especially with the use of "+". Additionally, there is a minority of the population within even Anatolian/Turkish Turks which exhibits more Central Asian or so-called "Turanid" (by some old-school anthropologists) influences to varying degrees, and from what I recall it is highest in the Central Anatolia region, though of course still rather low overall. This is also correlated in genetic studies of Turkish peoples. So at least in that case, there is something to be said of Central Asian nomads migrating to Anatolia and bringing their language to a much larger existing population as elites, but also contributing genetically to a portion of the population. So maybe it should state Turkics in the Middle East generally resemble peoples of the Middle East. With the Gagauzes and some other Turkic groups, it may be a somewhat different case.Word dewd544 (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * East-Hem 800ad.jpg

Deleting material related to Xiongnu and Huns
If nobody is going to provide material relevant to Turkic migration within the Xiongnu and Hun sections, then I will be deleting them. They provide no information on Turkic migration and are written like a personal tangent on Turkic origin theories, which is not the purpose of this article, as it is called Turkic migration. I fail to see how theories of Turkic migration, poorly cited, are relevant here. There are entire paragraphs where turks are not mentioned even once. For example there is an entire sub section on the Five Barbarians (Wuhu), among which none of them are confirmed Turks. Qiushufang (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * On the Turkic people page, it clearly says during their migrations "Many vastly differing ethnic groups have throughout history become part of the Turkic peoples through language shift, acculturation, conquest, intermixing, adoption, and religious conversion.[3] "
 * The problem is were they East Asian origin or West Eurasian origin, for a long time, the wikipedia was okay to admit Turkic people were East Asian origin but recently a user decided to change it to predominant west Eurasian. 77.103.186.178 (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is a quote from a book " The earliest Turkic migration may have started with the Xiongnu people". " The Hunnnic of Europe were possibly descendants of the Xiongnu from East Asia ". Other books described Xiongnu and Huns a East Asian people or East Asian migrants. However recently on the Turkic people page it says this. The genetic and historical evidence suggests that the early Turkic peoples were of predominantly West-Eurasian origin but also harbored significant Northeast Asian ancestry, being described by Chinese sources as "mixed barbarians" with blue/green eyes.77.103.186.178 (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan is also a majority turkic country and should be included. Not including it means that probably some "azeris are persians" guy wrote the article. 5.197.218.86 (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)