Talk:Kipchaks

Comments

to merge with Polovtsian? Mikkalai 09:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that one should redirect here (this spelling should resemble the native one better), but the content should be fully merged first. --Shallot 13:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, The native spelling is "Kypchaks" (with the "dull i" sound, spelt "Кыпчак" in Cyrillic). I happen to have a book written by an "ideologist" of this movement. It contains quite a few interesting facts, but they are hard to be separated from politically biased crap, kind of Zestauferovisms in Habiru/Eberite/Avar stuff some time ago. Mikkalai 17:52, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved it to the version with y. I figured it was a Cyrillic transliteration anyway so it'd be imprecise in any event, but if Kypchaks is better that's fine. --Shallot 18:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Move from 'Kypchak'

Sorry if the move from 'Kypchak' to 'Kipchak' offended anyone. It's simply that 'Kipchak' is the commonest form of the name, and that most frequently encountered in academic publications (it's taken from Russian - Кипчак - rather than Kazakh or Uzbek). One advantage of this is that one avoids becoming embroiled in nationalist debate about transliteration, as both the Uzbeks and Kazakhs have a claim on the Kipchak heritage, and they do not transliterate in the same way (or, indeed, consistently). If we really want to be accurate then it ought to be 'Qipchaq/Qypchaq', but this seems to be getting into the realms of pedantry. If people feel strongly about this then it can be left, but on the whole using the most familiar form of a word seems to me to be a good rule of thumb. (Sikandarji 14:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC))

I've consulted further with a friend of mine who speaks both Uzbek and Kazakh, and it seems that the spelling 'Kypchak' is really rather misleading. It's true that "ы" is normally transliterated as "y" in Russian, but the sound represented by the same cyrillic letter in Kazakh is quite different, not a Russian "uy" but the Turkic back-vowel "u" (as in 'put') which in modern Turkish in the latin script is represented by an "i" without a dot. Accordingly I still think "Kipchak" is the best spelling, whereas "Kypchak" is a wholly unfamiliar form of the word, and is no more accurate as a transliteration. {{Sikandarji 23:40, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)}}

The Kipchaks (Polovtsi) in russian steppes

They arrived in the steppes of the northern shore of the Black Sea during the 11th century. In 1068 they win Russian army on the river of the Alta, devastated the Russian borderland. The Dasht-e Kipchak (the Kipchak' plains, polovetskaya step is the steppes von the Volga, Don, Azov regions). Don't rv it. Ben-Velvel 22:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't rv it if (1) you have a source (see WP:CITE) and (2) if the information you're putting into the article made sense in English! Tomer^talk 04:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Citation from your article: "They arrived in the steppes from the northern shore of the Black Sea during the 12th century, under the pressure of the Mongols." It is nonsense and absence of logic.!!! Mongols in 12 century lived in the central Asia, but not of the shore of the Black sea. Kipchaks were nomads and lived in steppes only. At 11-12 centuries Kipchaks moved from the river Irtysh to the river Volga, and then to the Dnieper and to the Danube. The Desht-e-Kipchak is the area from Irtysh to Danube. In 1068 Kipchaks devastated Kievan Rus. Polovtsi is yellowish in old Russian. The Old-Russian dictionary is the source. Citation from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. "Polovtsi or Cumans, nomadic East Turkic people, identified with the Kipchaks and known in Russian as Polovtsi. Coming from NW Asian Russia, they conquered S Russia and Walachia in the 11th cent... They founded a nomadic state in the steppes along the Black Sea..." Other sources: Pouchenie by Vladimir Monomakh, medieval Russian Annal (in Russian) and the Tale of Igor's Campaign, medieval Russian Annal (in Russian). Ben-Velvel 15:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

sir -> kipchak

please write about it, the kipchaks were known before under the name sir from orkhon-enisey inscriptions. 24.218.8.72 05:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I think the Cumans article should be merged into this one. After all, aren't both terms different denominations for the same people? Rsazevedo (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cumans are a subgroup, just the western branch of the Kypchaks. bogdan (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced that they are a subgroup. How about the Polovtsy? Are they also another subgroup?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cumans are surely just the western branch of Kipchaks, therefore Cumans and Kipchaks are not the same.Spring01 (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Köten (a Kipchak ruler) who was forced to emigrate to Hungary was both a Kipchak and Cuman. When so many scholars say that the term Kipchak, Cuman, Polovtsy, etc. refer to the same people we have to accept that. I recently encountered the term Kuman-Kipchak in The Turks in World History by C.V. Findley. Perhaps, this should be the title of the new wiki article that would combine the two articles (Kipchaks and Cumans).--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Cumans are just the western part of Kipchaks if you like it or not. So Cumans does not equal Kipchaks. Therefore having just one article wouldn`t be very encyclopedic. Spring01 (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cumans are not Western Kipchaks. The two articles have to be merged. Provide sources that clearly state the difference between the Cumans and Kipchaks. I have sources stating that the Cumans, Kipchaks, Kun, Polovtsy, Komanoi are one and the same people. Also there are maps indicating Cuman presence in the east. So how they can be the Western Kipchaks?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on the merger as I don't know enough on the subject. However, something needs to be done about how Polovtsy and Polovtsian redirect to Cumans where the Polovtsy are described as Kipchaks. Other redirects may need checking too--Peter cohen (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we ask those opposing the merge of the two articles to provide sources clearly stating that the Cumans and Kipchaks are two separate ethnic groups. Merely reading the term Western Kipchaks is not sufficient to define them as a separate ethnic group. I do realize that there is a great deal of publications referring to Kipchaks as Cumans. Therefore I suggest we create a new article called Kuman-Kipchak that would merge the two articles. All other names such as Cumans, Kumans, Kipchaks, Qipchaks, Polovtsy, etc would redirect to Kuman-Kipchak.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For me, both of them goes. But we should keep in mind that, even though Encyclopædia Britannica admits that Cumans are just the western branch of Kipchaks, it has two separate articles; namely Cuman and Kipchak. --Chapultepec (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider Merging

Hi all. I am Romanian, and thus directly concerned about this snippet of history, and I would like to give my view on the issue: While we can all see that the Cumans (or however you wanna write this) were part of the Kipchaks, I do not think it would be the best solution to merge this article under Kipchacks, OR Russian History, for that matter. I will illustrate why not - it would be the same as saying "well, since Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, etc., are all Turkic people, why would we need to separate them?". The difference comes not from ethnicity, but from what they did from the moment they separated from the main group, politically, organizationally, militarily, etc. History is all about evolution, and while I think it would be a great idea to link all these domains (russian history, turkic heritage, black sea history, etc), I do not think subordinating entire populations to some ethnic tribe half way across the world helps have a better idea of the history of a specific area. ... at least for the fact that Cumans played an important role in the birth of Walachia, and so it should be "findable" easily. Thanks  :-) Fotescu, March 4, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotescu (talk • contribs) 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Merge!

I'm Hungarian. Merging the Kuns with the Kipchaks would be Like merging the Hungarians with the Oghuz Turks being that they split from them. The only difference is that the Cuman empire didn't survive. They still deserve a separate chapter as they were in history.

I'm inclined to agree to not merge. If the Cumans were a subgroup of the Kipchaks then they are not all the Kipchaks. There seems to be sufficient material to establish that they at least had their own historical development, even if the broader matters of language and culture did not diverge so much. There are many articles on wikipedia covering subsets of larger ethnic groups. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree not to merge as well. Kipchak Khanate and Kipchak could be important related subjects, however, it is not even fully clear whether or not Cumans were even Turkic as Kipchaks being perceived. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Magyars did not "split from the Oghuz Turks" - Magyars are Finno-Ugrian people from the Urals, not Turks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.1.232 (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Do not merge, from Bulgaria

Do not merge! This merger is aimed at undermining the role of Christianity among Cumans and in the Steppes before the affirmation of Islam in the 15th century! Historical truth should be the only motive, not politics, please! 15.195.185.83 (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity

I removed the ethnicity section, since it was a very unconstructive work of vandalism. It had no references whatsoever and it put up wild unsupported theories about racial issues of Cumans and Kipchaks, while it is an established fact that they were a turkic people.The same was posted in the Cuman People article and I removed it from there too. 95.223.187.171 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What fact is proven? Who Turkic? Here is a great example that does suggest relationship of Cumans and Kipchaks while still implies about a possible difference: Qypchaq Languages: Cuman and Armenian-Kipchak languages (in Russian) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Mistake===

Hello ! Please correct the text on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipchak_people, chapter Language. To say that Hungarian language is similar to Kiptchak and Cuman, it is a big mistake. Turkic languages are belonging Altaic languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages), Hungarian belongs to the Ouralic family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_language). Instead of it, you can say that the Hungarian language got a lot of words from Turkic languages !Thanks !

Turkic belongs to - (drum-roll) - Turkic languages! Altaic is a dead theory no longer supported, even by the linguist that first proposed it. Magyar language is one of the Finno-Ugric languages, and is completely separate from Turkic.50.111.1.232 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Kipsak Flag.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kipsak Flag.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Kipsak Flag.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Blond and blue-eyed?

Ther article says that they were blond and blue eyed because they descended from the Dingling whom the chinese describes as auch but the article on the Dingling contradicts this saying: Chinese records do not mention the physical appearance of the Dingling, suggesting general homogeneity with people of the Asiatic region, and their name appears rarely

It also seems highly unlikey considering that the article calls them a Turcic people... I'll remove this part with the reference to here and the Dingling article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.210.214 (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello 141.53.210.214, generally sourced sentences should not be deleted. Thanks. 62.143.41.82 (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2012 (CET)

Turkish-language map

The map used in the article is informative and relevant. But unfortunately since it is taken from Turkish Wikipedia, the names of the locations are in Turkish. File:State of Cuman-Kipchak (13.) tr.png Is it possible to reproduce the same map but with English names inserted? werldwayd (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Names in foreign languages

The head section has a long list of names of the confederation in various foreign languages. This is not quite appropriate; the English wikipedia should give the name in English, and names in other languages should be used in the corresponding wikipedias (or in the Wikictionary.) But since those names have been entered, I think it is no big harm to leave them there. -- JorgeStolfi --187.106.62.53 (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kipchaks. 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/20080512013502/http://www.islamset.com/islam/civil/kipchak.html to http://www.islamset.com/islam/civil/kipchak.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)