From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Russia Portal Kipchaks is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Kipchaks is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents 1 Comments 1.1 Move from 'Kypchak' 1.2 The Kipchaks (Polovtsi) in russian steppes 1.3 sir -> kipchak 1.4 Merge 1.4.1 Reconsider Merging

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)}}

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)