This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Surayeproject3 (talk | contribs) at 00:32, 19 October 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:32, 19 October 2024 by Surayeproject3 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keraites article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
kerey/kerait tribe in Kazakhstan
It should be noted that there are several thousand people of kerey/kerait tribe in Kazakhstan— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.16.26 (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2006
"Molokan" heresy
I propose to delete the following paragraph as WP:OR:
- The dispensation to permit consumption of milk during Lent in the Russian Empire was eventually derided as "Molokan" heresy by the Russian Orthodox Church but became popular among peasants.
Where do reliable sources show that the Molokans are relevant to the Keraites?-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
How about:
- "The dispensation to permit consumption of milk during Lent was eventually derided by the Russian Orthodox Church as heresy among peasants."
It is a relevant and fair comment in a matter of fact report on the unique religious practice (of milk consumption during lent) which characterized the Keraites as mentioned in the article. It closes that section nicely.
I have, however, found an example of what looks like synthesis and original research in the "name" section of the article. Here:
- The Mongolian name Khereid is ancient totem name derivated from root Kheree(хэрээ) "raven". Some authors also do not exclude that this name may cognate with Turkic qarā "black", and the Mongol tribal name possibly became historically conflated with various other Turkic tribal names involving the term.
It would be better to simply read:
- Some authors also do not exclude that this name may cognate with Turkic qarā "black",
Meanwhile, concerning:
- The Mongolian name Khereid is ancient totem name derivated from root Kheree(хэрээ) "raven". and the Mongol tribal name possibly became historically conflated with various other Turkic tribal names involving the term.
Where do reliable sources show that the Raven totem name is relevant to the Keraites?
Also in the Origins section:
- It is unclear whether the Keraites should be classified as Turkic or Mongol in origin.
Is there any reliable source which states this because it looks like it is just an assumption. The term Turco-Mongol refers to Turks who were under Mongol control/influence not to Mongolians. The fact that the Keraites spoke a Turkic language and the fact that their descendants (the Khazakh Argyns and Kirgiz Kireis) are Turkic speakers does not lend any support to the un-sourced claim. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- YuHuw, you have not answered the question. Misplaced Pages:No original research says:
- Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
- You have not provided a reliable, published source linking the Keraites to the Molokans.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- My answer is that there is no need to mention Molokans, it is only relevant to report what happened to the practice honestly and openly without hiding anything. It was Nepolkanov who originally brought up the Molokan issue in discussions relevant to this article. Mentioning the fate of the practice is helpful to readers to understand how authors like Robert Ker and Grigoryev (and apparently also Shapshal and Polkanov and who knows how many others) seem to have managed to conflate things pertaining to purely Turkic Keraites (e.g. origins in Altai and relations with Nestorians -Shapshal; no hebrew influences in Tatar language - Grigoryev; and practically everything Polkanov wrote) with certain Russian Karaites whose origins have been well demonstrated originating with the Karaite Subbotnik sect which broke off from Molokan Subbotniks. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- No idea about the "raven" or "Molokan" stuff, it may well be irrelevant. But otherwise as background information: "Turco-Mongol" is normally used as an umbrella term for all Mongol and Turcic tribes of the time, not only for Turcs living under Mongol influence. Its most common use is for tribes that can't be conclusively assigned to either group (which is quite difficult, especially early in the empire where there are hardly any written documents to be found). As the article correctly states, a small number of reported names may be an indication, but not really hard evidence. The word "Khar" (хар) for "black" is common to both language families. --Latebird (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input User:Latebird 87.69.184.128 (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- No idea about the "raven" or "Molokan" stuff, it may well be irrelevant. But otherwise as background information: "Turco-Mongol" is normally used as an umbrella term for all Mongol and Turcic tribes of the time, not only for Turcs living under Mongol influence. Its most common use is for tribes that can't be conclusively assigned to either group (which is quite difficult, especially early in the empire where there are hardly any written documents to be found). As the article correctly states, a small number of reported names may be an indication, but not really hard evidence. The word "Khar" (хар) for "black" is common to both language families. --Latebird (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This unilateral action does not reflect the consensus between us. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody has presented any explanation as to why the removed paragraph would be relevant to the topic of the Keraites. Material like that can be removed as a matter of policy. Your reply here does not really explain anything, but seems to confuse "Keraites" with Qaraimits/Karaite Judaism, which are entirely unrelated topis. --Latebird (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Correct. These are entirely unrelated topics. This ancient and obscure Mongolian tribe has NOTHING to do with Karaites of any sort or type. Also, anything that refers to Seraya Shapshal as a reliable source for the historical record is only trying to perpetuate historical and ethnic falsifications started by a Czarist Russian spy in the Ottoman court in the beginning of the 20th century, in continuation of 19th century Czarist Russian ethnic and political court intrigue. warshy 15:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Latebird, I did not confuse them, but Shapshal and Polkanov did. It is a fair and relevant to report what happened to the religious practice of the Keraites so that future readers do not follow Shapshal's and Polkanov's mistake. Toddy1, Warshy and Nepolkanov have unjustly tried to make it look to other editros like I am trying to say they are related since January this year when I have never suggested anything of the sort. The Keraite religious dispensation to drink milk during Lent was later condemned as a heresy by the Russian Orthodox Church which had come to dominate the lands where the Keraites had previously lived. This is an inescapable and very relevant fact. It is only religious extremists irrationally terrified of being confused with Keraites which would oppose inclusion of such a harmless sentence. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Even in this "explanation", you keep conflating the two topics, despite your claim to the opposite. Seraya Shapshal, Yuri Alexandrovich Polkanov, everything linked from Karaite, the Russian Orthodox Church, and all related issues are completely off-topic here. The article now contains a hatnote saying Not to be confused with Karaite, which is all that needs to be said about it. As far as I am concerned, this discussion serves no further purpose. --Latebird (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Latebird. I completely agree with your position here, and I have tried to say exactly that several times above. Regards, warshy 18:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe one day a group of disambiguators will come along who will see the issue clearly without nationalistic or religious bias and actually understand what I wrote rather than assume they understand and post replies which miss the point and fail to address the confusion. The confusion will continue until the point of confusion is finally grasped and dealt with effectively. Let's not forget that it was Nepolkanov who first brought Karaites into this topic, and although it was me who responded to him by placing his demands in the article, it was also ME who removed them from the article. Nepolkanov, Shapshal, Polkanov, and no doubt many others have and still are making the confusion. It is only a matter of time before someone else conflates the issues. The fate of the Lenten Milk-drinkers being designated a heresy is therefore very relevant to the article as a preemptive strike against that sort of confusion. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have reliable sources that explicitly make the link, and show why one is relevant to the other?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe one day a group of disambiguators will come along who will see the issue clearly without nationalistic or religious bias and actually understand what I wrote rather than assume they understand and post replies which miss the point and fail to address the confusion. The confusion will continue until the point of confusion is finally grasped and dealt with effectively. Let's not forget that it was Nepolkanov who first brought Karaites into this topic, and although it was me who responded to him by placing his demands in the article, it was also ME who removed them from the article. Nepolkanov, Shapshal, Polkanov, and no doubt many others have and still are making the confusion. It is only a matter of time before someone else conflates the issues. The fate of the Lenten Milk-drinkers being designated a heresy is therefore very relevant to the article as a preemptive strike against that sort of confusion. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
KIRAT IN Mahabharat , Nepal & India
Duplicate discussion. Moved to Talk:Kirati people#Keraites in Mongolia.The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is mention of Kirat people & their history in Mahabharat , Nepal & India. Linguistically, culturally they are similar. Did they originate from Indian Tribe & migrated towards mongolia thousands of years back? I think some DNA Analysis will help establish 10000 years old relation of the tribes.
"Kirātas (Sanskrit: किरात) are mentioned in early Sanskrit literature as hunter tribes from the Himalayas. They are first mentioned in the Yajurveda (Shukla XXX.16; Krisha III.4,12,1) and in the Atharvaveda (X.4,14), which dates back to 16th century BC. They are often mentioned along with the Cinas "Chinese". A Sanskrit-English Dictionary gives the meaning of 'Kirat' people with the lion's character, or mountain dwellers.
The Sanskrit kavya titled Kiratarjuniya (Of Arjuna and the Kirata) mentions that Arjuna adopted the name, nationality, and guise of a Kirata for a period to learn archery and the use of other arms from Shiva, who was considered as the deity of the Kirata.
Hindu myth has many incidents where the god Shiva imitates a married Kirati girl who later become Parvati. In Yoga Vasistha 1.15.5, Rama speaks of kirāteneva vāgurā "a trap by Kiratas", so about 10th century BCE, they were thought of as jungle trappers, the ones who dug pits to capture roving deer. The same text speaks of King Suraghu, the head of the Kiratas who is a friend of the Persian King, Parigha. "
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/Kirati_people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.196.34.144 (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Moving to avoid duplicate discussions. Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Kirati people § Keraites in Mongolia
Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2020
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change turcic to turkic 37.47.108.105 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Done –Removing protection
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have been autoconfirmed for many years and thus can remove the semi-protected status of this article. However, I don't think I've ever done this before and believe it's better that a more experienced (in this area) editor has a look. The last edit on this talk page was 4.5 years ago and I didn't see any edit-warring in the article's recent history. If the editor who looks at this agrees with me, he/she should also have a look at the Mongols article which is also semi-protected (and has been for 6 years) Dutchy45 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. And no, you are not able to remove the semi-protection. Only an admin can do so. Autoconfirmed only gives you access to edit semi-protected articles, not change their protection status. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 13:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class Mongols articles
- Mid-importance Mongols articles
- C-Class Mongol Empire articles
- Mongol Empire task force articles
- WikiProject Mongols articles
- C-Class Assyrian articles
- Low-importance Assyrian articles
- WikiProject Assyria articles
- C-Class Central Asia articles
- High-importance Central Asia articles
- WikiProject Central Asia articles
- C-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Mid-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- C-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- C-Class Medieval warfare articles
- Medieval warfare task force articles