Links[edit]

The following links are from List of Turanism related subjects, which now redirects to this article.

http://www.eurasianet.org/resource/cenasia/hypermail/200104/0023.html

Let me start by saying that I employ Pan-Turkism and Turanism as identical terms. Thus I do not agree with Georgeon and Landau who argue that pan-turanism means unity of Turks, Hungarians, Mongolians and the Finns.

http://www.turcoman.btinternet.co.uk/frontiers-turkestan.htm Turkestan and Turan

http://www.realchange.nareg.com.au/ch3.htmTheir country is a vast and eternal land: Turan!"

http://www.kongar.org/aen_tr.php There was a revision of the Pan-Turanism of Ziya Gokalp

http://egemenlikulusundur.net/ustat/tarkul/alpch12.htm Central Asian Identity under Russian Rule

http://www.pafaculty.net/~history/h100/glossary.html Middle East Dictionary

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/992/cichocki.html ALPAMYSH AND CENTRAL ASIAN IDENTITY UNDER RUSSIAN RULE

http://eurasia-research.com/erc/001cam.htm SUN IS ALSO FIRE

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/53/128.html Nationality or religion?

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/53/125.html "Basmachi:" Turkistan National Liberation Movement 1916-1930s

http://www.ku.edu/~ibetext/texts/paksoy-2/cam1.html SUN IS ALSO FIRE

http://www.geocities.com/enver1908/enver.html Ismail Enver was born in Constantinople on 23 November 1881

http://www.turkiye.net/sota/paksoyt1.html

http://aton.ttu.edu/ Uysal - Walker Archive

http://www.iccrimea.org/gaspirali/ 150th anniversary of the birth of Ismail Bey Gaspirali, a Crimean Tatar leader

http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/gaspirali.html Ismail Gaspirali (1851-1914)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9724/Tatar_FAQ-shs006.html Who are the Crimean (Kyrym) Tatars?

http://www.tatar.ro/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=MostPopular Tatar music

http://www.turcoman.btinternet.co.uk/turkism.htm Pan-Turkism Past Present and Future

http://www.peoples.org.ru/tatar/eng_099.html PAN-TURKISM: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

http://members.tripod.com/~fantasian/gw.html Gray Wolves

http://www.turkishdailynews.com/past_scanner/04_07_97/scanner.htm some people have discovered Turkes

http://www.day.kiev.ua/DIGEST/2002/04/culture/cul4.htm http://english.pravda.ru/culture/2001/11/01/19783.html A multicultural Ukraine and Russia???

http://www.greece.org/genocide/books/miracle/page135-136.html Since 1965, it has found expression in the Turkish parliament

http://www.riga.lv/minelres/archive/01261999-13%3A47%3A59-4881.html CRIMEAN TATAR HEADQUARTERS FIREBOMBED

http://www.soros.org/fmp2/html/july1999.html Forced Migration Monitor

http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/emigrations.html

http://www.turkey.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=5984&pagenumber=8 Who were the ancestors of Turks?

http://www.loc.gov/rr/amed/neareast.html The Near East Section of the African and Middle Eastern Division

http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0001/0001_giris_2.htm Ozturkler

http://www.cilicia.com/armo19j.html AUTONOMOUS REGION OF MOUNTAINOUS (NAGORNO-)KARABAGH

http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/people/Shorish_Jadidism.html Back to Jadidism: Turkistani Education After the Fall of the USSR

http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2003/01/230103.asp Russian problems

http://www.cilicia.com/Plagiarism.htm FROM NONSENSE TO NATIONHOOD: A DANGEROUS TRAJECTORY OF AZERBAIJANI NATIONALISM

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Berkeley/9423/randoku1999-5.html Nationalism in Japanese

http://www.cncho.pe.kr/kric/kric/%B9%CE%C1%B7%B0%B3%C8%B24.htm Nationalism in Korean

http://turkistani.5u.com/

http://www.nsjap.com/axis/history.html Japanese Racial Movement – Turanism / Turanianism---Japanese language belongs to the Turanian (Ural-Altaic-Sumerian) family of language. (Turanian is to Ural-Altaic-Sumerian as Aryan is to Indo-European)

http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~budapest/Japanese/Istanbul%20sketch.htm Hungarian immigrants greatly contributed to the international culture of Istanbul

http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/creeca/RCEEE/2002_ind.htm Russian, Central Eurasian, And East European Specialty Group

http://www.hungary.com/corvinus/lib/tria/tria30.htm Joseph A. Kessler, Turanism and Pan-Turanism in Hungary

http://www.google.ca/search?q=turanism+hungarian&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Google: turanism Hungarian

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Arrow+Cross+Party%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Google: "Arrow Cross Party"

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=japan+turanism&meta= Google: japan turanism

http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/turkey/turkey14.html Köprülü Era

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2697/tbhrhrw6.html Denial of Ethnic Identity

http://www.cc.org.cn/wencui/oldwencui/zhoukan/1110adaa05.htm Turanism in Chinese

http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/SU-N.HTM Hungarian etymology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirv (talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 November 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permission was given I am not violating any copy right laws as I have asked and gotten permission from the author before hand. However you are right I will personalise it, I was given permission to do this, and asked if possible to reference the author Dr. Kaveh Farrokh. Which I will, I will spend this week on the article and try to shed the political parts and concentrate not on what they did but what it is. And add their claims etc. The object of my goal is to explain exactly what Turanism is, thier objectives and what they represent and claim.

I am hoping that is ok with wikipedia and not against any of its policy? As permission by the Author was given to me to copy and reproduce his work. Therefor I am only usuing parts of his work that deals with Turanism and not the whole book. --Aryan Khadem 23:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not believe any neturality is in voilation as Pan-Turanism is a political movement that teaches propoganda. IF I am in violation I will like ot hear your opinion on the talk.

--Aryan Khadem 23:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV[edit]

the current form of the article, due to aryan's massive edit, has an alarmist anti-turanism propaganda tone, which is unencyclopaedic. it also contains many factual inaccuracies.--Calm 16:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You Claim false inaccuracies, where? Pan-Turanism is a political movement that teaches false history, how is my article anti? I can bring up evidence of pan-turan movement falsities. Do not alter or bring up personal views, I have given numerous references, iof you dispute it come up with something solid other then opinion please --Aryan Khadem 00:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not your judgement to make. This is an encyclopaedic article not a platform for your Soapboxing which is evident by the way you have referred to it as "my article". I will make making some well sourced edits in the coming days to rescue this article from being the POV pushing propaganda peace it is. I look forward to your replies. Indoaryanman (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

you claim to have permission to use the text from the websites you use,, however text "with permission only" cannot be used in wikipedia since that is not compatible with GFDL licensa under which all text in wikipedia must be licensed. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 07:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I typed Turanism and did a search it came upon this:

"Turanism, or Pan-Turanism, is a political movement for the union of all Turkic peoples, and as such is equivalent to Pan-Turkism. Georgeon and Landau extended Pan-Turanism, however, to be not only unity of all Turks, but also unity of Turks with Hungarians, Mongolians and Finns."

So I decided to expand on it, the best source and author on the subject is Dr. Kaveh Farrokh who is on the Persian Gulf Board Member and is also a member of Iranian Linguistics Society, who teaches at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. He is a leader in his feild and wrote historical and other books, he contribution on pan-Turanism or pan-Turkishism is vast when I asked him about copying it this was his reply

"I posted the book for free for the benefit of all (I cancelled my book contract so that I could do this). If possible, it would be nice if my name was mentioned as a courtesy. Otherwise, please feel free to copy as much as you need and as much as you wish. I am indeed honored." - Dr, Kaveh Farrokh

I altered some of his work, and felt it unecessary to delet most of it, and wanted to honour his contribution, this man cancelled his book contract just to write about pan-Turanism. It is in respect to him his research with references was put up, also if you look at the talk, many many pages dispute the claims of pna-turanism, and it is stated as a terrorist political movement, if you notice I did not really mention that or call it a terrorist organisation but explained its, history, beliefs, origins and assocation, it is a indepth article and that is well written.

There is no linguistic, genetic, historical evidence of many of Pan-turanist claims as well as lookingat the above explanationm before my expansion it claims that Finns, Mongols, and Hungarians are Turks and share the same history, So Drini can you please put the article back on, as you see so far on the vote it is 2:1 lets bring this case foward.

Thank you to Drini and whoever else reads this. --Aryan Khadem 23:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the ideologically biased claims regarding Pan-Turanism as being a racist "Nazi" ideology which falsifies history ignore the fundamental facts:

1. There is still very little accurate data and knowledge about the Turanians in the West.

2. Most of the ancient written historical documents about the Turanians are from European, Arab, Persian, and Chinese sources. Most of these sources are heavily biased and seek to project an unfavourable image of the Turanians as primitive barbarians.

3. "Pan-Turanism" was born from the desire to liberate and reunite the Turanian peoples oppressed by Persia, China and Russia.

4. The historical evidence shows that Turan (Central Eurasia) saw the development of a highly evolved civilization of Sumerian (Mesopotamian) origin (S.P. Tolstov: Ancient Chorasmia). The Sumerians were the creators of the first known civilization, the inventors of agriculture, metallurgy, the wheel, writing, and astronomy, among others (S.N. Kramer: History begins at Sumer).

The 19th century researchers who discovered and studied the ancient Mesopotamian Sumerian language determined that it was related to the Turanian languages (M. Érdy: The Sumerian Ural-Altaic Magyar Relationship). Comparative linguistic analysis indicates that of all known ethno-linguistic groups, the Hungarian, Turkic, Caucasian and Finnic languages are by far the closest to Sumerian (K. Gosztony: Dictionnaire d'étymologie sumérienne et grammaire comparée). This is confirmed by archeological and anthropological evidence which shows that thousands of years ago, the Sumerians and other related Near Eastern peoples settled in the vast region of Central Eurasia from the Carpathian basin to the Altai mountains, from the Urals and Siberia to Iran and India (L. Götz: Keleten Kel a Nap (The Sun Rises in the East)).

The descendants of these Sumerian-related peoples were known as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Medes, Parthians, Chorasmians, Kushans, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Magyars, among others, and gave rise to the Finnic and Turkic-Mongolian ethnic groups. These Turanian peoples created flourishing cultures and states which exerted a determining influence on the peripheral Eurasian cultures of Europe, the Middle East, Persia, India, and China, as well as on the formation of the various Eurasian ethno-linguistic groups. For further reference see Historical Chronology: http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan/magyar/tor/chron.htm

5. It would be in the West's interest that a strong independent Turanian bloc would consolidate in Central Eurasia because this would act as a counterweight to the West's most dangerous enemies: the Iranian-backed islamic fundamentalism, the anti-western pan-slavist Russian imperialism, and the equally anti-western Chinese imperialism.

Webmaster hunmagyar.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.116.129 (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want you to back your arguement, Medes and Persians are the same race and spoke the same languguage, however no turkish migration till 1100 AD, also Sumerian was actually related to Iranic languages, you speak of oppression however there is not evidence of this, there are no anthropoloical or archaeological evidence of Turkisj peoples in central asia or caucas or the near east and middle east before AD period. And even the word Turan is actually Farsi and not Turkish, and Turkish borrowed heavily on Perisan words there are eveidence for this linguistically and anthropological. So please back your claims up with evidence! --Aryan 14:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"also Sumerian was actually related to Iranic languages" Not true. There is no evidence on any relations of Sumerian to any language, but it is known, that it can not be related to Indo-european languages. - Fagyd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.230.156.222 (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aryan and Fagyd: refer to evidence cited on discussion page of Turan article. - Webmaster hunmagyar.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.58.106 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already have. It doesn't seem very solid to me. But, for preventing ani misunderstanding, I personally have nothing against you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fagyd (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Türkeş?![edit]

Alparslan Türkeş's party didn't and also won't be defending Turkish Nationalism because they see Kurds as brothers of Turks. His ideology can be considered as a "traditionalist- Islamic democrat". Of course they defend the Turkish side in many situations and they deserve respect for these acts but still they haven't complete their duties to become a full nationalist movement. Deliogul 13:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

note:I tried to show the logic of the Turan here. Don't get it wrong and start to cut Kurds please. Wow, where was my brain at when I was writing such things. Deliogul 21:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions[edit]

Guys are you telling me that Finns and Koreans and Mongols and Japanese are Turks? They do not even look alike to me! Let alone languages and skin color! Am I missing something? Kiumars 14:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Koreans and Japanese are different from us and they are not included in Turan. On the other hand, Mongols and Turks aren't the same but Mongols are the Turan brothers(also the defenders of the Kızıltuğ) of Turks. Also Hungarians and Finns forgot their origins centuries ago and they see themselves as Europeans today so they are also not included in Turan. With respect; Deliogul 12:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're mixing this article up with Pan-Turkism (the two topics are similar but not the same). —Khoikhoi 22:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, Hungarians, Finns and Estonians aren't even Altaic but Uralic, so why should they be included here? --MushroomCloud 18:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who says Turanism includes only Altaic peoples? According to the Turan article, "it is primarily an ideological term designating Turkic, Mongolic and Finno-Ugric languages and people more or less indiscriminately". —Khoikhoi 20:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Turan is the land of Turkic people. It includes modern day settlements and, traditionally, the Central Asia. It is about coming together for the Turkic unification so even if Koreans and Finns are genetically Turkic, they are not included in the borders of the Turan. With respect, Deliogul 19:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think so. Perhaps in Turkish, but in English the term also includes Mongolic and Finno-Ugric peoples in addition to Turkic peoples. Since when are Koreans and Finns genetically Turkic?
Also note, Delioğul, that there is a fringe group in Japan called the National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party who essentially combine Nazism and Turanism. This shows that Japanese are sometimes included as well. —Khoikhoi 23:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ups, how come I didn't see your reply! Mongols are traditionally included in Turan so there is no problem about them. On the other hand, Korea and Japan are at far lands, even further than archrival Chinese Empire. Traditional tribes of the Central Asia don't have any common history with them. I also want to know one thing. Why this article is this short. It isn't what it used to be?! Deliogul 21:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turanism is similar to the "Aryan race" or "Indo-European" political movements in the early 20th century, both share a common belief of their "great race" of people originated from Central Asia and how "they" contributed to world civilization. The Nazis wanted to include Japan (then a wartime ally) as a "Turanian" people, along with the Thais, Tibetans, Hindis, Iranians, Arabs or Semites (not Jews) and "Turanians" into the list of peoples the Nazi approved of, but excluded Jews and darker-skinned peoples (i.e. Africans). Hitler didn't consider non-Germanic Europeans (esp. Slavs like the Poles, Latin Americans or Mediteranneans and Romanies/Gypsies) as equal and mentioned non-Caucasians are "inferior" to his "Aryan race" theories.
The proto-Turks and proto-Aryans have a homeland located between the Caspian and Aral seas, and the Caucuses and Himalyas ranges. But the "Aryans" are supposedly white Germanic or Celtic people (which is generally false), compared to the Turks are composed of "white" Europeans and "yellow" east Asians, but the Siberians who are close relatives of American Indians in North (or South) America are included in the "Turanist" movement. Many Turks share a religious, cultural and historic link with Arabs, Iranians and North Africans, while some Turanists linked black Africans the same way they linked white "Aryans" or correctly, Europeans and Malaysian-Polynesians of Southeast Asian origins.
Also to consider the Bahai faith which was rooted in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Istael strongly objected to racial categories and negative nationalism, but on all human beings are the same and based on scripture out of the Bible, Torah and Koran, the Bahaists believe all mankind came out of present-day Turkey (""Garden of Eden"?) to explain the theories about a close anthropological connection of Turks with Europeans, Africans, Asians, Australoids and Amerindians. Maybe we need a pan-human movement other than further dividing and hatred against other "races", since I've connected how the Turanians and Aryan movements are alike.

[ url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahai#Human_beings] +71.102.53.48 (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Hitler also claimed that the Japanese were the "master race" of Asia. Also the aboriginal Japanese originated in Central Asia west of Lake Baikal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1126:BC1:59C0:D76C:6311:92AE (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TÜRKEŞ!!!! HE IS ISLAMIST CHERKESS!!!!!!![edit]

Alparslan Türkeş and MHP isn't Turanist, they are islamist! Turanism article have a lot of wrong things. Turanism is shamanist and racist ideology. Key personalities are wrong so. Turanism don't think Ryukyians or Koreans... Turanian peoples are for Turanism ideology: Magyars and Mongol-Turks only!!! Turanism is racist, realist not romantist!!!! Please rewrite this article JOHN! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.226.67.173 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 30 September 2006.

John you are rude but right. Only wrong statement you make is this religion thing. Turanism doesn't include any kind of religion in it (even not include our historical beliefs, like shamanism). Turan contains Turkic people and our Turan brothers and its major goal is to unite all those people on our historical homelands under the red flag (the Kızıltuğ). By the way, I said all those you said in different times on this page but nobody cares. With respect, Deliogul 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reha Oğuz Türkkan?![edit]

You can read about the true face of Reha here[1]. He had mental problems which possibly abandon him from thinking about Turan etc. Deliogul 21:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

edit:Don't keep adding this guys name here because he was far from being a key personality. Deliogul 15:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Azerbaijan in Eastern Europe?[edit]

According to the United Nations definition, the state of Azerbaijan lies in Western Asia. If one includes it into Eastern Europe, then one should also include Kazakhstan, which has an equally tiny and questionable part in this region (though one might argue that it's in Southern Europe). As far as I know, Pan-Turanism is comparatively popular there. And what of the Tatars? --Humanophage 22:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turan Is Bad[edit]

Captivity is an unacceptable term for the Turkic nation. 88.244.214.76 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atatürk[edit]

Atatürk is not Turanism.Key persons should be removed from.

Sorry for my terrible English.I don't know English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.163.200.70 (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. I'm going to remove him, since my study of the topic has always indicated that Attaturk never held any Turanian delusions. Burnthisname (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kaveh Farrokh's article[edit]

The article by Mr. Farrokh is a combination of some very interesting research with conspiracy theory nonsense. I refer in part to the Bernard Lewis project based heavily on LaRouche sources. I think we'd be better off without such references; they're an embarrassment to the Wikipedia standards. QLineOrientalist (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Japanese and Koreans[edit]

Dear anonymous editor,

Your edits about Japanese Turanism are a little problematic. Your reference[1] is not about Japanese hatred towards Koreans, but an official page about Jomon archeological sites in Northern Japan, so it should be removed. Your other reference on the same topic is a short article[2] about a small group of Japanese who oppose the granting of voting rights to ethnic Korean permanent residents who do not have Japanese citizenship. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with Turanism. Your third reference[3] is a primitive web page of a never heard of “organization”.

Yours sincerely,

Maghasito

--Maghasito (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Jomon Culture". Jomon Archaeological Sites in Hokkaido and Northern Tohoku. Retrieved 2017-10-18.
  2. ^ "Japan's 'Internet Nationalists' Really Hate Koreans | VICE News". VICE News. Retrieved 2016-12-09.
  3. ^ "japanesesentry". japanesesentry. Retrieved 2017-10-18.

Maghasito's pseudoscientific political activity[edit]

Mahsito removed modern English language references and replaced them with obsolete Hungarian nationalist interwar period tales and references. It is not metapedia.--Filederchest (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Filederchest,

Your references carry no relevant new information about Turanian languages, as this information had been part of the article even before you made your edits. But the edits you made to the corpus of the article were detrimental for the quality, factuality, clarity and even for the intelligibility of the text. And, as you pointed it out, this is not Metapedia.

Yours sincerely,

Maghasito

--Maghasito (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Maghasító! So acording to you, your obsolete nationalist interwar period references represented the quality and factuality, while the books of the modern 21th century scholars are detrimental. (Maybe the modern scholars globally conspired against the turanian "eternal truth"?) But are the modern scholars detrimental for what? Detrimental for your obsolete nationalist political motivations and agenda?--Filederchest (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Sir,

There is no better source about Müller’s theory of Turanian languages than the works of himself. And citing the most authentic source, the words of one of the founding fathers of the Hungarian Turanian Society, Alajos Paikert, published in the journal of that society, is the best approach one can take. It is not an obscure, but an authentic historical source. In cultural history written sources never become “obsolete”.

Sincerely yours,

Maghasito --Maghasito (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Maghasitó! It is okay that an article must mention the history of a political/linguistic/racial theory, but it is obvious that you try to hide (at any price) the opinion of the modern scholarship about this phenomenon what we call turanism. Old and modern turanism operate with the classical tools of pseudoscientific language comparison and pseudohistory. (Please read this two short articles.) You simply don't want to see any information in the article about the opinion of modern scholarship, because you want to show off this obsolete fantasy theory as a reliable "scientific" narrative for naive readers in the 21th century. You simply mislead the readers with this wishful thinking. You even mention non-related off-topic Habsburg conspiracy theory about the Germanization attempts of Habsburg monarchs through the history, and you want to show your turanian fantasies as a victim of the politics. You forget to mention that the forced Germanization attempts were equally strong in Italian Czech and Croatian territories after the revolutions of 1848, despite these nations had not any sort of turanism. So with the help of false (off-topic) victimization you try to generate symphaty towards your pseudoscientific movement and political ideas.--Filederchest (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Sir,

Turanism was and is first and foremost a cultural and/or political movement. And as such, it is the subject of cultural history, sociology and cultural anthropology. Because it is a cultural phenomenon and not a scientific theory, it cannot be evaluated like a scientific theory; as being true or false. One can argue that a cultural phenomenon (in our case Turanism) is useful, useless, or even harmful from some specific point of view. But calling a cultural phenomenon good or bad, false or true is not a scientific predication; it is a moral judgement, and moral judgements are not constituent parts of science. Moral judgements are the realm of religions and philosophy. Neither religions nor philosophy can be considered science. Perhaps philosophy could be called “meta-science” … In fact, it is irrelevant if Turanism was based on (un)historical, but culturally relevant myths of origin and/or on then-current but nowadays contested scientific theories, as it adds almost nothing to the understanding of the phenomenon… What is important; why, and amongst what circumstances was it born? What effects it had? If someone became interested in those founding myths or the scientific theories they could look them up for themselves.

In fact, Italians (speakers of a Romance language) waged three independence wars against the Habsburgs in the period of Risorgimento, and successfully drove them out from Lombardy and Veneto. Croatians and Czechs (speakers of Slavonic languages) nurtured different Pan-Slavist ideas, like Yugoslavism, Czech-Slovakism and Pan-Slavism proper from the 18th century onwards, and vehemently resisted Germanisaton attempts (just like Hungarians did).

This article about Turanism is a piece concerning cultural history, and its goal should be the presentation of Turanism’s origins and history in an objective and neutral manner.

Yours sincerely,

Maghasito

--Maghasito (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Maghasító, your explanations have no basis, because you try to avoid the roots of turanism, the wrong premises. You confuse the causes and effects. The cultural aspects of turanism were just an effect and not the causes/roots of that phenomenon. And it is a very late effect of a much older cause, which was built on wrong scholarly/scientific premises. So the scholarly scientific debates are also unavoidable in this topic.

The wrong premise was Hungarian is a turkic language. And Hungarians are turkic people. The linguists around the word refuted it. Than the fantastic turanic race was created (which has no genetical proofs in the light of modern population genetic researches) Than the turanists invented the Ural-altaic hypotesis which was also rejecteded by scholars from the 1960s. Even the simple existence of altaic languages were rejected among linguists since the 1990s.

The most important thing: You try to avoid at any price to write about the wrong premises of this misconcept. Than you edited the Hungarian turanism article, where you pasted well known conspiracy theories, like the Habsburg conspiracy theory, than you opened in the _Hungarian Turanism article an off-topic section about the history of Hungarian language as official language, where you tried to confuse the history of Hungarian turanism with the Imperial Germanization attempts. These Germanization attempts existed in Italian, Czech, Slovenian and Croatian territories, therefore the imperial germanization attempts after 1848-49 had no any relationship with the Turanism. But you write a section to the article to create a false victimization and generate symphaty towards turanism for naive people.--Filederchest (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Sir,

It is a well-documented fact, that attempts at forced assimilation almost always result in opposition, resistance and strengthened nationalism as a countereffect. The forced Germanisation and centralization attempts of Habsburg monarchs in the era of enlightened absolutism alienated even the most loyal Hungarian aristocrats, like the Széchenyi and Wesselényi families. There is no victimization here… And the events and aftermath of the 1848-49 War of Independence worsened this even further. The relations were ambivalent and uneasy at best.

The Habsburgs had a pronounced role in the strengthening of Hungarians nationalist sentiment (see above). No conspiracy theories here…

It is a historical fact, that Hungarian historical tradition considered Hungarians a “people from the East”, with Turkic peoples as their closes relatives. This tradition was preserved in medieval chronicles (such as Gesta Hungarorum and Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, and the Chronicon Pictum) as early as the 13th century. And this tradition was corroborated by historical sources like DOI’s chapters 38 and 40.

You talk about linguistic theories as if these were hard scientific facts like Kepler’s laws. But these theories are not facts, because we have no proof for them. We have no historical records for the so-called “Uralic” languages… the oldest extant text is in Hungarian: the “Halotti beszéd”. So, all the comparative work is based on internal reconstructions of these languages, and not on comparison of real, attested forms. Uralic is often presented in the literature as a well-defined, problem free grouping, supported by numerous proofs. But this simply is not true. There are several competing theories of the family tree’s structure. In some of them there is no Finn-Ugric node, some lacks the Ugric node too. In fact, there is no agreed on, systematic reconstruction of either the Finno-Ugric or the Ugric nodes, and, consequently, of the top Uralic language node. And it is difficult to trace back and reconstruct for proto-Uralic major, relevant areas of morphology (verbal, grammatical, functional paradigms or sub-sets of paradigms), because most of the complex endings of present-day Uralic languages are innovations formed independently in the various languages. And these supposedly closely related languages show strong affinities to other languages and language groups, and these affinities proved hard to explain. Linguistic theories change with the passing of time. The idea of a tree diagram of languages’ descent was put forward in the work of August Schleicher. He came up with the idea of ranking languages according to their linguistic type, and assumed that inflecting languages (e.g. German) were superior to agglutinative languages (e.g. Hungarian) and these were in turn superior to monosyllabic languages (e.g. Chinese). And this concept was present in Müller’s Turanian theory too. Nowadays this theory is seen ridiculous. But in its heyday, it had tremendous effect. Schott’s and Castrén’s concept of a genetically connected language family of Ural-Altaic languages was widely accepted for a century. And it was abandoned not because it proven false; it went out of fashion because there was not enough reliable data to draw a firm conclusion. In the case of Altaic, the debate is still ongoing, and almost impossible to close definitely, as these languages and peoples have long-standing complex areal and contact relations. Both Ural-Altaic and Altaic remain relevant — and still insufficiently understood — concepts of areal linguistics and typology, even if in a genetic sense these terms might be considered as obsolete.

The text of the article mentioned the underlying historical tradition and the then-dominant linguistic theories, and the present state of them. Every reader could be able to look up the relevant articles of Wikipedia for further info.


Yours sincerely,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Maghasító! Regarding to the Hungarian Turanism article: There is a conspiration theory, because you falsely linked the turanism with Habsburg Germanization attempts regarding to the official language, which is a fallacy as I pointed out: The germanization attempts had not any relationship with turanism, because the germanization attepts existed equally in all non-german speaking areas of the Habsburg ruled territories. You called Gesta Hungarorum as Chronicle, which is false, because the genre of Hungarorum is not Chronicle but Gesta. As I pointed out Gesta is a medieval entertaining literature/genre and not Chronicle. Only the Romanian historians take the Gesta Hungarorum seriously. "We have no historical records for the so-called “Uralic” languages" All linguistic familes of the world have not historic records, they were reconstructed by scholars. It is true for all linguistic families, it doesn't makes them less factual. For example: The old Byzantine chronicles called the first turkic people and their languages as Iranian/Persian languages, and the turkic groups as people of Iranian/Persian stock, when they first met with them. Can we handle it as a fact? Off course not. Turkic languages and turkic people are not persianiranian speakers, and they did not become persian/iranian languages or ethnic groups just because the old chronicles wrote some misleading information about them. It is true for Hungarian language too. I suggest to read the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscientific_language_comparison#Traits_and_characteristics article, because your attempts to show Hungarian language as turkic language clearly based on that sheme. "there was not enough reliable data " It clearly means there are no proofs for Ural-altaic (turanian) fiction. Theories without proofs always go out of fashion, it is the eternal nature of scholarship and sciences. We must remove the germanization attempts and the history of Hungarian language as official language from the Hungarian turanism article, because it has no relationship with turanism, and it was a general Habsburg policy in all non-German speaking territories of their Empire.--Filederchest (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Sir,

You have pointed out nothing. I should repeat myself; the forced Germanisation and centralization attempts of Habsburg monarchs in the era of enlightened absolutism alienated even the most loyal Hungarian aristocrats, like the Széchenyi and Wesselényi families. There is no victimization here… And the events and aftermath of the 1848-49 War of Independence worsened this even further.

The aggressive German nationalism (i.e. centralization and forced Germanisation attempts) of the Habsburgs resulted in spread of affirmative and assertive nationalism (i.e. different Pan-Slavic movements) amongst the Slavic subjects of the empire, and that same aggressive German nationalism (i.e. centralization and forced Germanisation attempts) of the Habsburgs resulted in spread of affirmative and assertive nationalism (i.e. different nationalist movements, amongst them Turanism) amongst Hungarians. It is quite simple…

It is totally unimportant, if in your opinion the two Gestas and the Chronicon Pictum did not qualify as chronicles. None the less, these (along with DAI) are the sole main written sources of our knowledge of early Hungarian history.

It is really sad to see, that you do not comprehend the difference between the scientific/truth value of a scientific theory and a so-called hard fact.

In fact, Indo-European is much more factual and better documented, than the other groups, because linguists have a trove of extant Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Pali, and Gothic language texts. But even in this lucky situation, most of our knowledge about the development and early history of these languages is mere (more or less plausible) theory.

The theory of an Ural-Altaic family of languages was abandoned not because it proven false; it went out of fashion because there was not enough reliable data to draw a firm conclusion, neither pro, nor contra. In the case of Altaic, the debate is still ongoing, and almost impossible to close definitely, as these languages and peoples have long-standing complex areal and contact relations. Both Ural-Altaic and Altaic remain relevant — and still insufficiently understood — concepts of areal linguistics and typology, even if in a genetic sense these terms might be considered as obsolete.

I made no attempts to present Hungarian as Turkic language. Some Turanists, most importantly Vámbéry and his followers argued, that, based on the available data, Hungarian language is of mixed origin, having two genetic ancestors, Ugric AND Turkic. Some other Turanists followed the Ural-Altaic theory of genetic relatedness between the Uralic and Altaic groups. And some Turanists saw the question of genetic relatedness irrelevant, because they considered the longtime cultural contacts and cohabitation with nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppe belt in the past a good enough reason for building ties.


Best regards,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Maghasitó

"forced Germanisation and centralization attempts of Habsburg monarchs" Again: Germanization attempts among ALL non-German speaker territories of the Empire has nothing to do with turanism, so Germanization attempts had not any relationship with Turanism. Do you really think that Croats Czechs Italians were all turanists, becuse the Habsburgs wanted to Germanize them? :))))) So why shoud we tolerate an off-topic story in the article? You try to connect the turan fantasy to the history of Hungarian official language, to create false victimization. It's really funny, that your Turkic fantasies had better oportunities and position even in the Germanization era of neo-absolutism than in the Austro-Hungarian era (or Horthy-era), where the freedom of the speech and press was declared and enacted. Nobody prevented the turkish believers to print books or spread their beliefs even in universities. Interestingly, after the A-H Compromise and freedom of the speech and press, the turanists lost the ugric-turkic debate, and universities slowly started to reject the turkish fantasy, and not only in Hungary, but in all universities in Europe and the Americas where linguist trainings existed in universities. ISn't it strange that the golden age of turkic theories were during the era of Habsburg neo-absolutism? Than the turkicists were defeated by modern linguist comparison science (Which logic and methodology proved to be universally perfect among all langue groups on this planet). After that the Ural-Altaic hypothesis was born as a compromise, where the Finno-ugric languages were considered the most closely related languages, and direct ancestor of Hungarian language, and the turkic languages (as part of Altaic) were nominated only as more distant relative. Your other misconception, that Turanists were pro-turkic supporters. Wrong. Nearly all Turanists were finno-ugric supporters in Hungary since the late 19th century, and they only considered Turkic languages as a distant relative. So your turkicism (which consider the turkic languages the closest to the Hungarian) would be a strange thing for the members of the Turan Society when it was founded. (I thik you wouldn't even got a membership in Turanian Society with such turkicist (and finno-ugric denial) ideas in the 20th century.

Let's back to the topic again: There is no relationship between turanism and Germanizations.


"The theory of an Ural-Altaic family of languages was abandoned not because it proven false; it went out of fashion because there was not enough reliable data to draw a firm conclusion, neither pro, nor contra."

It is a clear proof of a very common (and silly) fallacy in your argument. I suggest to read it: http://a.te.ervelesi.hibad.hu/bizonyitasi-kenyszer-atharitasa

Read the Teáskanna example :)))))

"having two genetic ancestors, Ugric AND Turkic." Nonsense. There are no languages on this planet which had two ancestors. MAybe you confuse the linguistic family with the human (or other ivory animals) familes, where there are paternal and maternal branches/ancestry of the families. LAnguages and language-familes are similar to the single-celled creatures (like the Paramaecium) https://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/harom-tevhit-a-nyelvrokonsaggal-kapcsolatban?force_desktop

Do you still believe that the Turkic languages belong to the iranian/persian language and turkic people are iranians, because the old Byzantine chronicles wrote that fantasy (stupidity)?

"because they considered the longtime cultural contacts and cohabitation with nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppe belt in the past a good enough reason for building ties." Wrong again. Turanism was created as a geopolitical tactics, based on that misconception, that Hungarians and turkic people had common ancient language, and Hungarian population have any population genetic relationship with turkic and other central asian groups. Both proved to be false. Than Hungarian turanism changed its geopolitical object, it wanted to use Turanist tales as a tool for economic exploitation and expansion towards Central Asia (which was an unreliable fantasy because of the huge distanes and the simple existence of the Russian Empire) to get cheap raw materials for the Hungarian industry. It was a new idea for colonization. https://444.hu/2017/01/02/hogyan-gyarmatositottunk-volna-szeretettel-600-millio-turanit --Filederchest (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japan has a solid place in the 20th century Turanian fantasies[edit]

Just read the thousands of books about the turanist thinking of the 19-20th century: https://www.google.com/search?q=Japanese+turanism&num=50&client=firefox-b-ab&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=bks&biw=1600&bih=842 --Filederchest (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've protected this page for 4 days to stop the edit-warring, enough is enough. GABgab 20:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request: remove "Chechens and Ingushes" OR[edit]

Of all things, the lede currently says Turanism includes "Chechens and Ingushes" (actually the plural is Ingush, just like fish). There is virtually no support for this that I've ever come across among Chechens and Ingush, who are not "Turanian" under any definition as like Georgians they are Peoples of the Caucasus. The citation used for this is a sketchy, malfunctioning, nationalist website written in Turkish and honestly staring at that is an eyesore but I couldn't find anything supporting the statement. Please remove. Thanks, --Calthinus (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Calthinus,

It would be great, if you would be able to take a look at the Turanism article. Perhaps it is better now.

Thank you in advance,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maghasito it is good that Chechens and Ingush are gone from the page. But now I see that Tibetans are there, with the exact same shady source. This is also not acceptable to me. --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section "Pseudoscientific theories"[edit]

Edits by IP user 89.165.97.37 were reverted as possible vandalism by ClueBot NG, after which the IP went to edit war to get their version into the article. They were reverted by creffett, S0091 and Tursclan. Quite understandable, given the circumstances. The snag here is that the IP's edit was not vandalism, but an attempt to go back to an earlier version of the section. Unfortunately, the IP did not explain their edits very well in their edit summaries.

Krakkos created the section 13 September in this edit, with proper sourcing. Then Maghasito made some completely unsourced additions and was reverted by PaleoNeonate. Later, Maghasito has readded the text with some sources, but those sources are in my opinion not supporting the analysis, and large parts are still unsourced. I removed the addition once, but since I do not take part in edit wars, I ended up marking the section as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and left the arena. I could just as well have added WP:EDITORIAL and WP:POV. It is this completely unsatisfactory version the IP wanted to remove, with which I agree. There may be parts of the addition that has merit, but that discussion has so far been made impossible by the edit warring of Maghasito and IP89.165.97.37. --T*U (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories