Talk:Oghuz Turks

message: "The mention of the "six Oghuz tribal union" in the Turkic Orhun inscriptions (6th century) pertains to the unification of the six Turkic tribes which became known as the Oghuz. This was the first written reference to Oghuz, and was dated to the period of the Göktürk empire. The Oghuz community gradually grew larger, uniting more Turkic tribes prior and during the Göktürk establishment.[9]"
Oghuz term ment confediration of tribes, it's not an ethnic group of people. This article is extreamly ahistoric trying to represent an entire Turkic ethnos history as hisotory of Turkmen Oghuz. Article misleadingly states that Gok-Turks were Oghus, Huns were Oghuz and all so on. 
Term Oghuz is close to Oyghur, nothing more that tribe confediration, it doesn't mean particular tribe group and can mean completely different tribes  every time it mentioned. 
The first part of article seems sound while second part is just ahistoric something, disconnected from all modern researches world wide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.180.253 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

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

message: I removed this paragraph from the article:
Throughout history, the Oghuz Turks have founded different nations that have developed political and geographical identities of their own, yet share Oghuz ancestry, culture, history, language and literature. The modern Turkic nations of Azerbaijanis, Turks of Turkey and Turkmen are the three most historical of Oguz Turk peoples.
The second paragraph of the article reads:
The Oghuz Turks are the ancestors of today's western Turks whose numbers are more than 100 million and inhabit areas in western Asia and eastern Europe: Azerbaijanis of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the South Azerbaijan region of Iran, Turks of Turkey and Cyprus, Turkmens of Turkmenistan and northeastern Iran, Qashqay and Khurasani Turks of Iran, Balkan Turks of Greece, Bulgaria and the former Yugoslavia as well as Gauguz (Gokoguz) Turks of Moldova.
Which has all the same information in it already. siafu 16:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundancy

message: What is the reason for the vprotect template? siafu 23:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has been targetted by a particularly pernicious vandal, who requires a great deal of administrator attention to deal with. In the flurry of page protections and blocks, it is difficult to keep the actual page protection status in sync with the presence of a template indicating the block status. Nohat 00:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vprotect

message: I removed Germany, Austria, Belgium, Great Britain, etc. from the list of countries with Oghuz Turk population. The way it was written before would puzzle those who are not familiar with this part of history, and they might think that the Nazis spared the Turks from their concentration camps during WW2! I believe this part of the article should list the countries of traditional settlement of the Oghuz Turks, and not the places of Turkish diaspora after WW2! Also, I have never heard of a country called Gagavuz. Instead, I put Moldova. Also, there is no longer Yugoslavia, I put Serbia instead, there are a small number of ethnic Turks in Serbia, mostly refugees who fled the Albanian ethnic violence in Kosovo. As far as I know, no Turks live in Montenegro, that's why I didn't put "Serbia and Montenegro". The Montenegrins were renowned for their "love" for Turks and Muslims, this is why, even in Ottoman times, no Turks dared to live in that tiny mountainous country). Oh, now I've remembered that I forgot Romania, there is an ethnic Turkish minority in Romanian Dobruja! I wondered whether to remove Greece from the list, because those who are called Turks in Greek Thrace are ethnic Bulgarians of Muslim faith, Pomaks, or Pomakoi in Greek. Still, Greece is a country of traditional Turkish settlement, there were quite a lot of Turks in today's Greece before the Balkan Wars, WW1 and the Greco-Turkish war of the 1920-es. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.11.148.71 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 15 May 2006.
:Traditional settlements are Anatolia and Central Asia. We conquered Balkans and settled there for couple of centuries but today, Turks live in their homeland. With respect, Deliogul 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where Oghuz Turks live today

message: Hi. I have no knowledge of the Turkish language and very little of Turkey and Turks. I started to copyedit this page, but I ran into trouble because I can't tell what some of it means. (Ignorance works to my advantage here, because I will know it when a passage is unclear.) If someone would be kind enough to walk me through the article point by point, I will do what I can to make it read well.
1. To say that the Orghuz "are regarded" seems to mean that their status is in dispute. If so, by whom, and what are the alternate theories?
2. The capital "s" in "Southwestern Turks" implies that there is a well defined classification of Turks by compass orientation, and one of these groups calls themselves the Southwestern Turks.
3. I'm not sure one can be a "linguistic ancestor" in the sense that one can have descendants that can be literally counted along with the direct ancestors. Do these linguistic descendants call themselves "Orghuz Turks"? In other words, is "Orghuz" a term in current use among the Turkish people. Do they identify themselves as Orghuz if asked, or is it more a historical label? Do some of the linguistic descendants retain an ethnic self-image other than Orghuz? You see my confusion. Some of this is answered later in "Anthropology," but I'd like to have a complete picture.
3. Again, "linguistic ancestors of others." Are these "others" ethnic Turks or not? Don't imagine that I care, I just want to get the wording right, and "liguistic ancestors" rings coy as it stands. I have to suppose that "empire builders" swallowed up non-Turkish people as they went, and that's why we're talking about "linguistic ancestors" in the first place.  
Section "Name": 
4. "...a series of Turkic tribes..." The word "series" is mystifying. It seems to imply a sequential operation.
Section "Origins": 
5. "...large communal branch..." What does this mean?
6. "...written in Central Asia at least from the ninth and tenth centuries..." I want to make this "...written in Central Asia during the ninth and tenth centuries...", but I have to suppose that the writer meant something by "at least." Also, I can't see how it's an "example" of anything pertinent to the paragraph.
7. "Also in the 2nd century BC..." If this "also" refers to "the Huns (220BC)", then that would be the 3rd century BC. Which is it?
8. Same sentence, "...a western hostility of Huns..." Is this a quote from something? It isn't modern English, and seems to be an amusingly awkward literal translation. I like it a lot (it's like "a murder of crows"), but I wonder what it is.
9. "...Turkic Orhun inscriptions (6th century)..." BC? If this is the first written reference, and it appears in the 6th century AD, how do we know about Oguz Khan in 220 BC? 
10. It would be nice to have a date span for the Gokturk (please excuse the lack of diacritics) empire.
Section "Anthropology":
11. "...the authors state...", etc. What authors?
Section "Social Unit":
12. There is much quoted material, but quoted from what? This is a deal-breaker. I won't be able to do anything until that is straightened out.
13. The heading is "Social Unit", but we get a lot of culture. Perhaps a separate "Culture" heading is needed.
14. "...and when settled they would be active in agriculture." I don't see how this connects with their lack of emphasis on wealth. It is common for nomads to change when they become  settled people.
This is almost certainly not a complete list of my questions, but it will do to get started. Thanks. Milkbreath 12:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyeditor's questions 

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

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: here Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The book that was used as a source was listed in the references section and is not the same as the one you pointed. Nothing was copied from the URL indicated above. This appears to be a different edition of the same book named differently. I beileve the article was made worse by changing to the "According to the Book ..." style that selectively includes sentences.  (What was served by making the book's name bold?) Secondly, if the administrator were a little more responsive to the complaints of some of us there wouldn't be a need to include sentences verbatim. If you read the heated arguments you'll notice a user insisting that I do not put unsourced material and that I am not a source. Sometimes even placing referenced material verbatim does not stop certain users and the administrators and/or the mediators are simply ineffective and lack knowledge on most topics they get involved.  It's like the empowerment project for the college kids', retirees', and people with a lot of time in their hands. I'm not so sure about the WP anymore. Be more sensitive towards abusive users else the work of extremists becomes available to the masses making WP a vehicle for misinformation.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The book's title was in bold because I inadvertently formatted it incorrectly. Thank you for pointing that out; it has been corrected. Direct quotes of material need to be attributed. The text duplicates word for word another source. Even if it's a different edition, it is a copyright infringement to copy material directly from another source without attribution and quotation, as explained to you at your talk page. No matter how heated arguments here may become, Wikipedia's copyright policies have been crafted in respect of US law and must be followed for the good of the project. You are welcome to rewrite material in your own language, taking care not to follow so closely on the original that you create a derivative work. The material was changed in preference to the alternative, which was simply to remove it. That option, of course, remains open if the rephrasing does not suit the article as determined by contributors here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The articles I have been involved were somewhat controversial. The arguments and heated discussions left little room and time to focus on writing truly original phrases. But I have always uncluded the sources. (In this case the book is Nicole's Attila and the Huns listed in the references section.)  At least I tried and discovered that WP is not for me. Time is precious and only fanatics will spend that much to ensure their point prevails. As I stated above unless the rules and/or their enforcement are improved WP will reflect what is contributed by the inexperienced, non-experts, and the extremists. People with little time but knowledge will not bother much with this. I think twice whether to read a WP article, say, when it comes up in a Google search now. That is sad and unfortunate.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I don't understand why people keep updating this picture here. The people who are direct descendants of Oghuz Turks are (at least linguistically and paternally) are Turks of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. And there is no one in any of these countries who look like this picture. I am replacing it with the picture of a girl from Turkmenistan.
And yes, it was proven that there are direct descendants of Xiongnu (from 200BC. Mongolia) living today in Turkey. We can only be proud with that. If you read the same article more carefully (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml), these people, Turkish ancestors, had mixed Caucasian and Asian features already from 200BC. From that time on, Turks conquered and assimilated numerous Iranian speaking tribes, such as Yuezhi, Tocharians, Sogdians, as well as, other Indo-European speakers, descendants of Schytians and Sarmatians, and countless Finno-Ugric tribes. The Seljuks were allready mixed with all of these. Some of the princes might have had mongoloid features (his mother could be Mongolian, or even Chinese! Turkish kings often received Chinese princeses).     
If Iran was ruled by Turkish dynasties for a thousand years, we are sorry for the Iranian friends. But it wasn't Turks who destroyed your fire worshiping Sassanid Empired, it was the mighty armies of Umar ibn al-Khattāb. Too much humiliation, we know! But you should stop any hostility against our nation. There are already 20 million Azeri in Iran, and excluding the remaining 80 million living in Turkey and Azerbaijan. I am not counting yet Turkmenistan, Ozbekhstan, Kazakhstan... Hostility against such a great nation is not good for you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sencer A (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The text in the Homeland in Transoxiana section: The In the 8th century, the Oghuz Turks made a new home and domain for themselves in the area between the Caspian and Aral seas, a region that is often referred to as Transoxiana.
Well as far as I know Transoxiana is in the east of Aral lake between Amu Derya and Syr Derya. So I think that the text in that section should be reviewed.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: "Turkmen" comes from the iranian word torkmand/torkman which in persian means "they became turk" ie they(the iranians of central asia)have been turkified.
john L.Drake  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.81.84 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Turkmen" comes from the iranian word torkmand/torkman which in persian means "they became turk" ie they(the iranians of central asia)have been turkified. 

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

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

message: This article fully contradicts modern scholarly encyclopedias. The Oghuz (or Ghuz) were a historical nomadic confederation in Central Asia who later moved to Iran and Anatolia and transmitted the Oghuz languages to these regions. There are no "Oghuz" today, so this article is totally unsourced POV in this regard. Please see this scholarly article. I have therefore tagged the current version because it is unscholarly, unsourced, and POV. Tajik (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  tagged 

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

message: Again, I could be wrong for the 1st edit at 2010, but "Speakers of the southwestern branch of the Turkic language subfamily are also sometimes referred to as Oğuz Turks." from Britannica is still valid. I will add it back if no objections from opposing editors. Y? Kavas (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  latest

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

message: A big question... Is there anybody who can present reliable sources that claim the turkic speaking people in Iran are from turkic ethnicity, because I have sources, that say they are Iranian. Aregakn (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The turkic people in Iran 

message: It is needed for all that have Reliable sources on matters to participate in talk. The discussion is named "The Turkic ethnicities, Turkic languages and the population data in the article". Please contribute. Aregakn (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A big discussion on [[talk:Turkic peoples]] related to this article as well 

message: The Y-DNA of the Oghuz still exists today.
The male members of the Ottoman Sultan's Dynasty.
Although the Ottoman sultans Back up, women from Europe have brought to the harem, but the Y-DNA was always Oghuz Tribe.
Today, 24 princes of this dynasty:
#Şehzade Osman Bayezid Osmanoğlu Efendi (d. 1924) (I. Abdülmecid)
#Şehzade Dündar Aliosman Efendi (1930) (II. Abdülhamit)
#Şehzade Harun Osmanoğlu Efendi (1932) (II. Abdülhamit)
#Şehzade Cengiz Nazım Efendi (1939) (V. Mehmed)
#Şehzade Osman Selaheddin Osmanoğlu Efendi (1940) (V. Murat)
#Şehzade Ömer Abdülmecid Osmanoğlu Efendi (1941) (V. Mehmet)
#Şehzade Mehmed Selim Orhan Osmanoğlu (b. 1943) (descendant of Abdülhamid II)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.189.46.203 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman Dynasty are Oghuz Turk's (Y-DNA) 

message: I'm slightly confused by the section Turcoman & Turkmen, particularly the references to Western books writen before the modern age.  Does this mean "modern age" in the sense of the Modern Age article, i.e. post-mediaeval, i.e. it is talking about mediaeval and earlier books?  Or does it mean a more recent "modern age" (e.g. mid 20th century onwards, when a lot of the older anthropological beliefs were becoming discredited)?  Also, is this a case of "prior to ..., a some Western texts got it wrong", or is it a case of "the terms had different meanings then"? Wardog (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Turcoman" & "Turkmen" before and after the modern age 

message: There are several disparate articles on Western Turks in Wiki. In particular Western Turkic Khaganate appears to overlap this article significantly, although it does offer distinct information. It seems that some of these should be merged or restructured. There is simply no reason to have these separate and, to complicate things further, with different spelling of major terms and names. I'll let this comment hang for a while, then try to add merger flags. Alex.deWitte (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Turks 

message: Bozoklar meaning Gray Arrows not Brown Arrows
source: my native language is Turkish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oeneki (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bozok meaning 

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=ST6TRNuWmHsC&pg=PA352&dq=The+Oghuz+in+Kazakhstan+and+the+Syr+Darya-Ural+river+region+faced+continuing+pressure+from+tribes+to+their+east+who+were+moving+to+join+them.+They+were+also+engaged+in+what+for+us+must+remain+ill-defined+wars+and+raids+with+their+Kimek+and+Karluk+neighbors.+The+steppe+was+in+turmoil,+a+reflection+of+the+dislocations+caused+by+the+collapse+of+the+Turk+kaghanate+and+subsequent+Karluk-Uighur+and+Kirghiz-Uighur+wars.+The+migration+of+the+tribes+which+ultimately+came+to+form+the+Oghuz+of+the+Syr+Darya+should+be+viewed+in+this+context.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FmJkU420BYPesASN4oCADg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Oghuz%20in%20Kazakhstan%20and%20the%20Syr%20Darya-Ural%20river%20region%20faced%20continuing%20pressure%20from%20tribes%20to%20their%20east%20who%20were%20moving%20to%20join%20them.%20They%20were%20also%20engaged%20in%20what%20for%20us%20must%20remain%20ill-defined%20wars%20and%20raids%20with%20their%20Kimek%20and%20Karluk%20neighbors.%20The%20steppe%20was%20in%20turmoil%2C%20a%20reflection%20of%20the%20dislocations%20caused%20by%20the%20collapse%20of%20the%20Turk%20kaghanate%20and%20subsequent%20Karluk-Uighur%20and%20Kirghiz-Uighur%20wars.%20The%20migration%20of%20the%20tribes%20which%20ultimately%20came%20to%20form%20the%20Oghuz%20of%20the%20Syr%20Darya%20should%20be%20viewed%20in%20this%20context.&f=false
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Cambridge_History_of_Early_Inner_Asi.html?id=ST6TRNuWmHsC
Rajmaan (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Oghuz migration 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Oghuz Turks. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090404021912/http://www.tdk.gov.tr:80/TR/SozBul.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF4376734BED947CDE to http://www.tdk.gov.tr/TR/SozBul.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF4376734BED947CDE&Kelime=y%c3%b6r%c3%bck
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090404021912/http://www.tdk.gov.tr:80/TR/SozBul.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF4376734BED947CDE to http://www.tdk.gov.tr/TR/SozBul.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF4376734BED947CDE&Kelime=y%c3%bcr%c3%bck
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oghuz Turks. 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/20110709202119/http://www.ptolemaida.net/p-istoria.html to http://www.ptolemaida.net/p-istoria.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is a mistake, bad translation from Greek to Latin.
This part could be found in several, old Hungarian books:
"Sciendum est a principio Patzinacitas ad Atel (Volgám) et Geieb (Jaik, Ural) fluvios habitasse, iisque conterminos fuisse populos illos, qui Mazari (Magyari) atque Uzi cognominabantur." Const. Porphy. de Adm. Imperii. Cap. 37
Fejér György: A kazarokról. 1848. 
"...iisque conterminos fuisse populos illos qui Mazari atque Uzi cognominantur." de adm. Imp. c. 37.
Lukácsy Kristóf: A magyarok őselei, hajdankori nevei és lakhelyei. 1869. 
Moravcsik made a much better translation.
DAI 37. Of the nation of the Pechenegs 
"...having common frontiers with the Chazars and the so-called Uzes." 
Gyula Moravcsik, 1967, p. 167 (Greek original + English translation)
I think it is necessary to remove this "Mazari atque Uzi" part from the article.
-- Ulrich von Lichtenstein (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mazari atque Uzi 

message: 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) 18:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: It would be great if you add the Qutb Shahi state and the Azerbaijani khanates. AzərbaycanTürküAze (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qutb Shahi an Azerbaijani Khanates