Talk:Yenisei Kirghiz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There should be discussion of their relationship to the modern Kyrgyz people. Modern Kyrgyz scholarship claims the Yenisei Kyrgyz as their predecessors, while the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia finds it rather unlikely and pinpoints possible connections between the Yenisei Kyrgyz and the modern Khakas people. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I would asked you to refer English source on this issue over your so-called sieviot enclcylepecedia. Eiorgiomugini 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I ask a question not make an assertion. That makes a difference. Since when are we obliged to source our questions? The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia was translated in English, by the way. Generally, English-language sources are not superior to Russian-language sources, especially on such obscure topics as the origin of the Khakas people, where there is no research in English at all. --Ghirla-трёп- 04:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Other than your political sentiment, I see no reason for you to said something like that. In an English wikipedia we would prefered English encyclopaedia over the Russian ones. Do me a favor, check out both links[1], [2], there are two articles on the Turkic Khaganate in the Chinese encyclopaedia, and each of them have a longer length than your soiviet enecyeyedia [3], who is gonna said which is superior? Maybe is better for you to place soiviet enecyeyedia under the cold-war article for a soiviet-pov research. Eiorgiomugini 00:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- What do you know about my "political sentiment"? A number of words in the article is not a valid criterion for assessing scholarship involved into its composition. The major Gokturk sites were excavated primarily by Russian/Soviet archaeologists, not by the English or Chinese. Therefore, English scholarship (if it exists), or the Chinese compilations are derivative by nature. Your comment about "cold-war" and "soiviet-pov-research" betrays risible ignorance of the scale and level of scholarship involved into that project. Finally, the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia was translated in English, so it's an English-language source too (as if it really did matter). --Ghirla-трёп- 06:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Who cares about your political sentiment, I was addressing a point, did I said anything about I care. Leaving this apart, in your first addressing you're actually talking about the lack of Khakas research under the English sources, which is totally wrong and subjective. My comments are "betrays risible ignorance"? Infact, you should be the one addressing that to yourself by making claims for your argument. So finally, if there is an English translated version for the old soiviet encyclopaedia why not try and used it on the first hand. But anyway, I would still think it would be far better to use a new available russian encyclopaedia on the other hand, if that really matter. Eiorgiomugini 06:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
"A number of words in the article is not a valid criterion for assessing scholarship involved into its composition" What is? Like in this derivative article [4] here? All I see is a number of sources about history and dates that can be found in almost elsewhere, nothing with regard to the archaeologists researchs. Indeed I believe your assessing of scholarship involved in its composition are clear enough, although it had just shown that those are ludicrous in everyway for your claims. Eiorgiomugini 07:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a few questions: since the Yenisei Kirghiz’ name’s Chinese transcriptions – in all its variations – clearly don’t correlate with its Turkic “equivalent” and the physical descriptions of “Kirghiz” people or let’s say Xiajiasi/Gekun/Jiankun in different historical sources including the earliest in Chinese lead many scholars to believe they initially were not Turkic, how can we say they are the (main) progenitors of the Kyrgyz at all? Red hair and fair to reddish faces, blue-green eye colour, and then high body stature and even deep-set eyes characterised their physical appearances according to those. Then again though e.g. Genghis Khan and his family line was said to have had the very same pigmentation and was portrayed with those features (together with distinct typical ‘Mongoloid’ or East Asian traits!) this made people never speculate about a possible ‘Caucasian’ background. Early Sacae presence in the Altai region is something that is attested, and over time intermingling with indigenous populations had happened; smaller tribal groups of them might have assimilated to Turkic, Mongolic or other tribes. Conversely hostile tribal relations do not really account for a non-common ethnic origin between two peoples.
Where do those Kyrgyz as the Turkic speaking people firstly appear? In Kashgari’s dictionary? How can we say they were the same as the Xiajiasi/Gekun/Jiankun? Nowadays’ Kyrgyz looks resemble quite strongly the descriptions of the ancient (Kök)Turks etc. Could it be that the Kyrgyz/Kirghiz as denoted with that name were through and through a Turkic people with a Turkic tribal self-designation but were not identical with the Xiajiasi/Gekun/Jiankun who vanished from history or got assimilated to Khakass, Kyrgyz and whoever happened to dwell in proximity? Well, that’s just my guess. 134.100.32.213 09:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
