Talk:Turanians

Untitled

what is this for god's sake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.29.77.174 (talk • contribs)

Merger tag

This tag should be removed. "Turanian tribes" is a term distinct from Turan, because the latter is a mystical term, while the former clearly refers to historic groups of people speaking Uralo-Altaic languages. These include not only Hungarians, Finns, Turks and other Turkic-speaking groups, but also ancient tribes of Etruscans, Huns and according to some references even Medes. Atabek 06:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Should be deleted

The information given in this article has no scholarly basis whatsoever, and it should be deleted. There is no such thing as "Turanian tribes". The idea of a unity of the Uralic and Altaic languages is, to say the least of it, controversial - not to mention the Etruscans and the Medes.

One suspects that this article has been started so that the Pan-Turanists could have a playground of their own after they have been driven away from the Turan-article. However, Wikipedia should not have different articles according to different ideological paradigms. If one disagrees with the point of view expressed in an article, the correct procedure would be to defend one's case wih references to respectable (printed and peer-reviewed) authorities. Enkyklios 06:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, according to this theory no such definition as Turan ever existed and there are no scholarly references to Turanian tribes at all in academia. Is that what you mean? What does reflecting the term known in scholarship in encyclopedia have to do with pan-Turanism? Atabek 07:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)¨

What I mean is that "Turanian" is not used as an ethnic or linguistic category in contemporary research. It was used earlier in anthropology (see the quotation in Turan), but this use was abandoned together with the racism it used to be associated with (like "Aryan" as an anthropological category). In modern mainstream scholarship, the word is used only with reference to either ancient history (the Avestan Turan) or modern ideologies (like Pan-Turanism).

Thus, the idea of Turanian tribes belong to the realm of mythology and should not be presented as a fact. There is no ethnic unity of the Uralic and Altaic people. Furthermore, nothing indicates that the languages spoken by these people had a common ancestor distinct from the ancestors of other languages ("Proto-Turan"?). They may belong to the hypothetical Nostratic language family (together with Indo-European), and there was of course extensive contact between the individual languages. But that's it.

At any rate, if you want to "reflect the term known in scholarship in encyclopedia", please quote those sources, but take care to find respectable printed sources, not just some excentric homepage. When you have collected scholarly support, you should include the discussion into the Turan article, where it surely belongs. Enkyklios 10:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This article should be moved to Turan.Hajji Piruz 15:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I say, keep it as a dab page to minimize terminological confusion. dab (𒁳) 12:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an excellent solution. Enkyklios 14:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Reinserted the removed link to Iranian peoples. Please explain removal before removing, thanks.Hajji Piruz 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

goes to show

A.H. Sayce, in his Assyrian Grammar, probably from the start of the 20th century (not given on the title page), calls the Akkadians Turanian on page 1. Just goes to show how terms can be essentially useless because everybody uses them for their own specific purpose. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

And in the 1880s the theologian and (by today's standards) pseudo-historian George Rawlinson called the Mannaeans and the Urartians "Turanian". A laughable claim today, but still stated to be the absolute truth by Turkish and Azerbaijani extremists. 89.242.189.2 (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)