Unsigned comments by IP 69.156.2.68 

 ===Reply=== 

 1) Please sign your comments by real name or Wikipedia User name, because "Webmaster - hunmagyar.org" serves no particular relevant identifying purpose, and does not give your remarks any greater authority. 

 2) You didn't present any direct argument as such above  instead you merely cut-and-pasted your whole pre-canned spiel boilerplate text. 

 3) There's no particular accepted evidence connecting Sumerians with the Central Asia region in any direct or obvious way.  From the technical linguistic point of view, there's only a TYPOLOGICAL relationship between Sumerian and so-called "Altaic" languages, not a scientifically-ascertainable relationship of common linguistic origin.  (Of course, many would say that there's only a typological relationship WITHIN the "Altaic" languages, not a scientifically-ascertainable relationship of common linguistic origin.) 

 4) We have a fair amount of surviving written text in the Sogdian language, and in the Saka language, and they're both revealed to be Iranian. 

 5) This article will not serve its purpose very well if it flagrantly condradicts all the other relevant articles on Wikipedia.  For example, the articles on Sumerian language and Scythians don't endorse any Altaic hypothesis. 

 6) Your version of the article didn't even mention the Shah-nameh (the work which in some ways popularized the word "Turanian" in the post-Islamic period), and didn't mention that the word Turan is first attested as a Persian word, expressing geography as seen from a Persian point of view.