Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:56, 6 March 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Hakozen, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -Rholton 03:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Huns

Please read the entire article before you edit. The article on Huns dedicates a lot of space to the disputes over the exact ethnic nature of these tribes, with some asserting that they were Turkic and others that they were not. Therefore, one cannot claim in the article header that they were indeed Turkic. CRCulver 00:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If you do not stop, I will report you for vandalism. CRCulver 04:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You are a student in Finland. So you should know that the Finns have relatives in Central Asia, including the Khanty, the Mansi, and the Samoyeds. There are also other non-Turkic peoples there, such as the Tungusic and Mongolic peoples. The Turkic peoples were never the only inhabitants in Central Asia. That is why the exact identity of the Huns is so uncertain. Furthermore, as the article shows, there has been a great deal of serious research into the issue that concludes that we cannot call the Huns specifically Turkic. These scholars are much more trustworthy than a single ethnocentric editor (you) on Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, why are you calling me a racist when you deny the existence of non-Turkic peoples in Central Asia? Since I want to draw attention to the incredible diversity of this part of the world, I am certainly not racist. CRCulver 23:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, modern Central Asia has many Turks. The situation in antiquity is uncertain. It is thought that originally the Turks were a small tribe who imposed their language on neighbouring peoples. However, before this (such as during the time of the Huns) the proportion of the population of non-Turkic peoples of Central Asia--Samoyeds, Finno-Ugrians, Tungusics, Mongolians, Iranians, etc--was larger. Therefore, you cannot say the Huns were Turkic. There's not even enough evidence to suggest they were part Turkic. So, stop adding "Turkic" to the page. The best thing to do is to leave it as it is, where it says their exact ethnic makeup is uncertain.

Oh, and since you talk about the "Hun language", it is clear that you haven't researched this much. There are no reliable attestations of the language of the Huns. CRCulver 00:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not an Armenian and Greek conspiracy. Much scholarship on the Huns and early Turkic migration is done by Western Europeans and North Americans who don't really care what laymen in Armenia or Greece say. So are you going to claim that there's a world conspiracy against Turks? If you want to make changes to the article, reference respectable international scholarship. Don't just call everyone racist and destroy the careful attention to all views that the article now holds. CRCulver 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and a small tribe (the Indo-Europeans) decided the language of ultimately over 1 billion people. So it's not unbelievable that the early Turks imposed their language on neighbouring tribes. In fact, much current archaeological thought doesn't support the idea of large movements of single populations in antiquity, it's usually the case that small minorities force their language on the large nations they conquer. Take as an example the spread of English in India. CRCulver 01:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)