Talk:Keraites

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

kerey/kerait tribe in Kazakhstan[edit]

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

Native name[edit]

While the tribe is Mongolian the native name should be in Mongolian : Kheraid (see e.g the same article in Mongolian). There is no sense to derive it from Perso-Arabic. Неполканов (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm here in response to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § YuHuw's-endless disruptive edit war against the consensus:.
Up for discussion is the native_name parameter in Template:Infobox former country.
I presume that this infobox is used because Keraites is a country which no longer exists; in this case the former "country" is one of the five dominant Turco-Mongol tribal confederations (khanates) in the Altai-Sayan region during the 12th century.
Per the template documentation, native_name is the name in native language(s), displayed underneath the English name. If there are multiple native languages, separate different names with line breaks. If the native language is English, leave this section blank and give only the "conventional_long_name"
What are the native language(s), and what is the native name in each of these languages? wbm1058 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence seems to indicate two native languages: Mongolian language and Perso-Arabic. wbm1058 (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The common_languages parameter is unspecified. It might help here to first agree on and specify the common languages. Per the documentation, these are the Major language(s). Add wikilinks where possible. If only one language is involved, you may enter simply the name of the language if the corresponding language entry exists.
e.g. If you enter only "English" for this field, the template will display [[English language|English]].
If more than one language is involved, you must enter full wikicoding.
e.g. If the languages are English and Spanish, you must enter [[English language|English]], [[Spanish language|Spanish]]. wbm1058 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are very glad to see you here and on all other pages disrupted by Yhuw. Perso-Arabian transcription was insisted by him so I had to leave it for consensus. Most widespread assumption is about Mongolian etymology of this tribe native name(see RS in the article+ the Kheraid kingdom map + wikipedia pages on other languages), since this tribe has Mongolian origin. Definitely not Perso-Arabian. Неполканов (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Dunlop uses Perso-Arabian? Why? Is there any harm to just showing both in the infobox, as I've just done? wbm1058 (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perso-Arabian definetly not their native name. Dunlop only cited Perso-Arabian sources but did not claim that Keraits were Persian or Arab speakers. He wrote in cited RS that Karaits were Tatars or Mongols . So there is no place to use Perso -Arabic name as their native name. Also since other sources define the mongolian name Khereid as original name(see the article). In majority of the sources on numerous languages, including English, this tribe is called Kereit. Only Dunlop used name Karait, but also not as their native name Неполканов (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More on the "Name" section[edit]

  • Comment I was trying to determine through the edit history of this article, who (and since when) made the very first line of the "Name" section of the current version of the article read:

The name is recorded in Perso-Arabic spelling as كرايت or كريت (kārayit, karayit).[1] In English, the name is variously adopted as Keraites, Karaits, Karait, Kerait, Kereyit but in earlier texts also as Karaites.

Unfortunately I don't have the WP technical expertise or the time necessary to determine that. But if someone here with these technical capabilities I currently lack did that, I believe it would become very clear who is trying to connect this remote and obscure ancient Mongolian tribe that has really nothing to do with Karaites, to Karaite history. warshy (¥¥) 19:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use WikiBlame to find the answer. It's the "Revision history search" link near the top of the Keraites: Revision history page. It was added in this 13:34, 12 January 2016 edit by Dbachmann. Were you expecting it was YuHuw? wbm1058 (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, look at the edit you point to and the current version. No, they are pretty different actually. We're talking here about English transliterations of ancient obscure names. But this version you're pointing to does not have a WL directly to Karaites. Who introduced this direct link as it is now in this article? warshy (¥¥) 21:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this 10:02, 14 January 2016 edit added that "sometimes" transliteration, and this 10:06, 14 January 2016 edit linked to Karaites, which is a disambiguation page now. Generally nobody should be linking to that, though there may be some cases where intentional links to that disambiguation are OK. I just removed that link; there is nothing to disambiguate or link to, as that's just another transliteration or spelling of the name of the topic of this article. wbm1058 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all I should need to say really is QED. The first addition by this User is bases on some "maps," and a fake source. And the second, by precisely the same User, finally does connect it directly to this false, spurious transliteration to begin with. For anyone familiar with Karaite history and with the recurring-for-years problems caused in this area by this user there should be no more doubts. The focus of this User is definitely ONLY Karaite history, where it is clear where this circumventing, misleading strategy of editing obscure articles on the murky periphery of the real intended target (Karaite history) will lead to. It will lead to innumerable attempts over the coming years, as it has been happening for at least the past 4 or 5 years here on the English WP, to argue that Karaites are originally Christians (to begin with, again as a dissimulation), and then, obviously Muslims of Mongolian-Caucasian ethnic origin. warshy (¥¥) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What, specifically, are you saying is a fake source? That's a pretty serious charge. wbm1058 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at notes/references 3 and 4 currently in the article. The User is using English translations of old, foreign language geography works and ancient translated and then transliterated maps to link this obcure ancient Mongol tribe to Karaites, no less. This article/subject has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Karaite history, as I have already stated a number of times, besides some misleading transliteration play with ancient foreign languages possible English spelling of names. And based on such feeble foreign alphabet transliterations games, the article is then directly linked by the User to Karaite history, no less. This link as it is now is a shame, and it should be removed soon, once the article gets back to its old, stable version, before this user joined WP "recently." But the overall strategy of the User, based on all his WP contributions with this ID im the past two months or so is very clear to anyone that has been watching the developments in this area of the English WP for the past several years. warshy (¥¥) 13:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are saying that refs. 3 and 4 are "English translations of old, foreign language geography works and ancient translated and then transliterated maps". So you don't think they are good references to use here. That's not the same as saying they are fake references. You should be more careful not to use that word if you don't really mean it. wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article says that Keraites (the subject of this article) were recorded in earlier texts also as Karaites. So I don't follow what you are saying. Karaites is a disambiguation which indicates that the name may have one of several different meanings. Keraites is one of those meanings. Which meaning are you referring to when you say "This article/subject has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Karaite history"? wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at those suggested "sources" with your own eyes. I did not. But I am sure that we someone here has the time and resources to do that, they will find out that these old translated maps with transliterated names cannot possibly justify linking this obscure ancient Turco-Mongolian tribe with Karaite history. So those are really fake, inaccessible sources that would not pass any WP RS criteria muster for the historical purpose they are being used for.
Now, for the disambiguation pages, they are all also the artful creation of the same user. The second one is just a second loop pf the first one, that brings the user looking at them to the first one, and then to this very page, that again connects him to Karaites. Thos are just fake loops the only purpose of wich is to keep any reader looking at remote and obscure concepts coming back to the main issue for the User that created these loops, which are Karaites. And, if you look at the 4 entries that comprise the first disambiguation loop, the last 3 are basically the same, which is the small Muslim sect to which the User belongs. But this small sect argues that their ethnic origin is Turco-Mongolian, not Karaite, which is the first entry of the four in that disambiguation page. But the three entries are all based in old 18th and 19th centuries Russian empire historical falsifications themselves (for internal Russian empire political reasons), that "justify" for the small sect of believers their claim of a different ethnic origin. These are all just convoluted loops created for the sake of obfuscating the reader, if not by sheer forgery, then surely by making the simple reader dizzy from all these convoluted loops turning on themsleves, as you and I are by now. warshy (¥¥) 17:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked reference [3] History of the voyages and discoveries made in the north translated from the German of Johann Reinhold Forster and elucidated by several new and original maps p.141-142. It really does use the word "Karaites" to mean the people now called "Keraites" in English. I think it is useful and reasonable to have a statement in the article on Keraites along the lines of the wording ("in earlier texts also as Karaites. [3] [4]".
I checked reference [19], which you can download if you like as a pdf. The source uses the Latin script word "Keraith" not "Karaite" as claimed in the article. There is also a footnote on page 280 of reference [19] that explains that it refers to a Tatar-Mongolian tribe called "Kerith" or "Kerait". Do you have any objection to my changing the word "Karaite" to "Keraite" in the paragraphs that use reference [19] as the source?-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also have succeeded to found on the web the Yuhuw's "old" sources. Let's discuss' what in fact is written there and how they are reliable. The second source is secondary source of the first one so its cannot be reliable if the first is not. While the first one is pastor's (not scientist) translation from German.So it is not RS of correct use this word in English-it looks like some misspelling that happens in such kind of translation.So the correct sentence is not "in earlier texts also as Karaites" but "translated by Priest Johann Reinhold Forster from German Keraiten as Karaites"
Now regarding Dunlop's RS.I see 2 problems with it .First of all it is partial fake because Dunlop does not use transcription kārayit/karayit but Karait only also there. Second, transcription كرايت or كريت in Google translate shows it is Arabic word pronounced as kuriat .The first vowel is ā or e definitely not a. in the same time Persian pronunciation of this word is kè liè (Farsca: قرائی‌ها)
So I doubt about also Dunlop's spelling correctness.So the objectiveness requires in my opinion the following formulation  :Keraites (also Kerait, Kereit, Khereid ; Хэрэйд Mongolian ;spelled by Dunlop as Karait and by pastor Johann Reinhold Forster as Karaites.Also this misspeling need not to be the cental point of this article. Of cource there is no any sense to use Yuhuw's fake as native name or any other pronunciation of this name not in Mongolian language(Khereid). Неполканов (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without a reliable source making the connection between the name Хэрэйд (Khereid) and Keraites, the name Хэрэйд (Khereid) should be removed entirely from the article. It was first inserted as Кэрэйд in this edit [1] by User:Latebird but was later modified in this edit [2]. No source was provided for either insertion. If User:Latebird can jump in to provide the source that would be great. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

mn:Хэрэйд is simply the Mongolian translation of the name. Even if not technically a "source", the interwiki link should suffice for verification in such a case. --Latebird (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As someone explained further above, the Perso-Arabic spellings are only in there because Dunlop cites Perso-Arabic sources. Not seeing any actual connection of the Keraites to that language space, I'd suggest to remove those as irrelevant. --Latebird (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems not very relevant then, one might as well include the Chinese name. Perhaps the native name was closer to what Toddy1 dug up as in Keraith or Kerith which seem closer in sound to the Kyrgizian the "Kereis". It is clear from Toddy1's work that User:DBachmann is proven correct that "Keraite" is the correct academic term used for the tribe. It is helpful to the reader to mention Karaites has also been used as a spelling in English even if it was just a Christian Pastor's mis-spelling as suggested by Nepolkanov since it does (especially if brought together with other facts) help readers understand how and why certain authors seem to have confused the two groups. Encyclopedia articles should be written to help readers understand a topic they are reading about. They don't hide facts which offend sensibilities of senselessly angry editors like Warshy who has no business speculating (no matter how inaccurately) on what another editor's religion may or may not be (as he has done just above here). 87.69.184.128 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can dig up the spelling in Mongolian Script, then that might be more relevant than Chinese. According to the map in the article, the Keraites lived clearly outside the chinese border (which was much further south then). --Latebird (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Mongolian script be relevant for a Turkic group? The map is bogus by the way. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the Keraites were purely Turcic. Please see my explanation in the next topic below about the term "turco-mongol". Larger tribal confederations of the time (like the Keraites were one) normally consisted of a mixture of turcic and mongolic subtribes. --Latebird (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the description of the map, the data was taken from the "Mongolian National Atlas", 2009. Can you show us a more reliable source than that disagreeing with it? --Latebird (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Molokan" heresy[edit]

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.[22]

Where do reliable sources show that the Molokans are relevant to the Keraites?-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

"The dispensation to permit consumption of milk during Lent was eventually derided by the Russian Orthodox Church as heresy among peasants.[22]"

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".[6] Some authors also do not exclude that this name may cognate with Turkic qarā "black", [7] 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", [7]

Meanwhile, concerning:

The Mongolian name Khereid is ancient totem name derivated from root Kheree(хэрээ) "raven".[6] 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)[reply]

YuHuw, you have not answered the question. Wikipedia:No original research says:
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for your input User:Latebird 87.69.184.128 (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This unilateral action[3] does not reflect the consensus between us. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

KIRAT IN Mahabharat , Nepal & India[edit]

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.[citation needed] They are often mentioned along with the Cinas "Chinese".[9][citation needed] A Sanskrit-English Dictionary gives the meaning of 'Kirat' people with the lion's character, or mountain dwellers.[10] 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.[11] Hindu myth has many incidents where the god Shiva imitates a married Kirati girl who later become Parvati.[12] In Yoga Vasistha 1.15.5, Rama speaks of kirāteneva vāgurā "a trap [laid] 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/wiki/Kirati_people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.196.34.144 (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to avoid duplicate discussions. Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2020[edit]

change turcic to turkic 37.47.108.105 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keraites&oldid=1187420436"