Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:12, 12 January 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mongols Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Central Asia High‑importance Keraites 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, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan 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.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

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

Rewrite

I just rewrote this article based on the reliable sources I could find. Most of the previous version was Original Research, without any sources. If anyone wants to add some of that again, please make sure that your claims can be verified. --Latebird 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Kerait and Kalmyks (Oirad)

Why nobody mentioned that Kalmyk Torgud Khans are Kerait? Kalmyk Khans are descents of Wang Khan. It is the same Dynasty which ruled Steppes for centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.31.163 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Kerait and Kharot

Can it be that some group at least one tribe of these turko-mongolian tribe was left in central Asia and their descends are today the paashtun kharots/karots??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.96.79‎ (talk • contribs) --Latebird 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For now, those are just speculations, which have no place in Misplaced Pages. Once you can find reliable published sources that present a credible argument to support such a theory, then we'll consider the question. --Latebird 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkic origin of Kerait

I doubt in mongolian origin of kerey\kerait tribe. First of all "kerait" is a mongolian adaptation of turkic name "kerey". The -t ending is plural part of the word, same as english -s and turkic -lar\ler. The name itself is of turkic origin, probably derived from word "qara" (black). The explanation of such name is that first kereys could have black hair contrary to blonde sary-kipçaks & sary-uysuns, "sary" (yellow, blonde).

Kazakhs usually call kereys as "qara-kerey" (black kerey).

Kereys could be a part Uyghur people, since one myth says that one uyghur had 8 sons, all of them had black hair and thus they were called kerey\kereyler (turk.) or kereyt (mong.).

Islamic historian Rashid-Addin wrote that kereys have several clans including Sakhĭyat and Dubout. These two clans were interpretated as ancestors of Sakha\Yakut and Tuvan\Uryankhai peoples.

Regards, Iliassh (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Does your source explicitly say that Sakhiyat and Dubout are their ancestors for certain? If not, then your changes would mean to sell speculation as fact. Your explanations above look very much like original research, which makes your article additions suspect as well. Don't even try to draw conclusions about the origin of names and words if you're not a trained historical linguist, because you'll almost always go wrong. In this case, your arguments prove exactly nothing, because "qara"/"khar" means black in Mongolian as well. --Latebird (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I can give you a pretty scholarly source saying that Mongols like to adopt foreign names - Turkic and Sanskrit ones in the past, Tibetan ones at present. Yaan (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

a Turkic people Böri (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed they are a Turkic people related to the Seljuks, of course many modern Mongols descend from them, but I think it is time to edit out the extremely biased Mongol POV to a more neutral voice no? Kaz 15:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You really believed in what Muslim historians said. --Enerelt (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Where on the map?

It's too hard to find Kerait on the map, I can't spot them..--CzarKirk (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan of Marv?

What is the "Metropolitan of Marv"? This sounds like someone has incorrectly translated something into English. The word "metropolitan" is being used here as a noun (usually this form of the word is used as an adjective), and the only real use of the form "metropolitan" as a noun is as a descriptive noun mean a "city-dweller" (but that is not a common usage). Is this supposed to be City of Marv (as in Merv)? — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Mongolian scientists still not found any archaelogical find to prove Khereid, Naiman and Ongud's Christianity, modern Mongols, Torghut and Naimans don't have any ancient Christian (Nestorian) tradition (source:Mongolian documentary film about Tooril).I think that very few (mainly lords) were Nestorians. Ancientsteppe (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have citations to back up putting such statements in the article?--Toddy1 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It's Mongolian view, not European.Europeans love Christianity...Christianity is not nomadic culture.Chinese scientist found many crosses in Inner Mongolia but i doubt that it is enough proof. Ancientsteppe (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

POV dispute

This article is about the history of a modern thriving Kypchak ethnic group which constitutes a major portion of Kazakhstan's Middle Juz. It is as wrong to present the nation as a Mongol tribe because this is how it can be interpreted from Mongolian Historical sources as it would be to present the Mongols as a Chinese nation as they can be presented from Chinese historical sources. This article needs to be re-written to reflect the correct language and modern condition of the Kerait and remove all Mongol Bias. Hongirid (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge to Qaraei

NB This discussion was begun at Talk:Qaraei#Merge_Khereid_here by User:78.148.51.117 unfamiliar with discussion rules. Said user voted in Support of the merge.

Support Khereid is just an alternative transliteration (from Old Mongol language) of the Black "Tatar" tribes otherwise known as Qaraei or better still Kerei in modern Kazakh called Kerait in Syriac Church sources who currently constitute a major part of Kazakhstan's Middle Juz. This should be a History section of the Qaraei ethnic component of the Middle Juz.Hongirid (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The user above pushing for this merge now is the same one that two week ago wrote arguing that this historical article is about a "modern thriving Kypchak ethnic group." I.e., they are trying to push a modern nationalistic Turkic agenda, as opposed to a Mongolian historical analysis of possible origins of different tribes and ethnic groups the expanded geographical Khazak area (expanded because it tries to annex the entire Caucasus area to a supposed Turkic Khazak area before the Mongol conquest of the 13th century). It is just more modern, contemporary ethnic confusion (that tries to go back to supposed ethnic roots that antedate the Mongol domination of the 13th century) to add on top of an already very murky and confused historical record. The Qaraei article into which the proposed merge would merge this one is just a mess of ethnic legends and tales that is completely devoid of any serious historical sources backing it. warshy 19:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Mongolian quasi-historical analysis and the Syriac Church documents are extremely important and must indeed be included in the history section of an article about the Kerey ("Kara Tatar" / "Qaraei") people of Kazakhstan's Middle Juz. No one so far is suggesting removing such references, just putting them in their correct place. There is no suggestion in either article about the Caucasus Warshy. I suggest you read again. I agree the Qaraei article will also need re-writing after the merge. After which, the article could be renamed too. There are a lot of standards which need to be raised. Central Asian history articles on Misplaced Pages are currently in a fragmented disarray of misnomers.Hongirid (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Yes, modern nationalistic Turkic agenda arises. They want to say "Khereid's land is Turkic". Mongolian Kazakhs of Khereid origin tried to declare that Mongolia is Kazakh land in the 1990s. Nursultan Nazarbayev is not peaceful politician, all people know it. Sczc (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So I suppose you will say any recent publications about the Kypchak Turkic origins of the Mongolian Khereid are in fact politically motivated? Hongirid (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you could cite some evidence for this?--Toddy1 (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Since it is all unreliable Kazakh political propaganda, what is the point? :( Hongirid (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying that the only reliable evidence is your expert judgment on this matter?--Toddy1 (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, where did I say that? Hongirid (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If it helps you understand better, my 11:04 comment is an example of despondency that Warshy / Sczc have already decided that "the only reliable evidence" will be their already expressed "expert judgment on this matter". Hongirid (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah I misunderstood. I thought that you were saying that there was no point in your citing evidence for what you are say.

In that case, please can you cite some reliable sources as evidence for your contentions.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before, what is the point now? Hongirid (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It means the sources in the article (e.g. Church sources) talk about the Turkic nature of the Kerait people but they have been taken out of context and the Kerait are presented as Mongolians, and if anyone says that we need to report the sources correctly and honestly as they are about Turks, we will be called Kazakh nationalists pushing a Pan-Turkic political agenda. :( I would just like to see some honesty in reporting what the sources say instead of re-writing them from the point of view of Mongolian political agenda. But what is the point in saying this? If the majority of editors want to re-interpret and re-present the facts through the Mongolian political point of view, who can stop them? But a report on the reality of a situation is fantasy if it is decided by democratic majority rather than source info. Anyway there are more Kazakhs than Mongols in the World so it is only a matter of time before this article will be corrected by overwhelming majority. Wait and see. :) Hongirid (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Judging from the above, there are apparently no sources to back up what the proposer says.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Origin of the Qaraei is uncertain. Some Kazakhs say that Qaraei originated from the Kipchaks. Also they consider Kipchaks and Khereid to be different peoples. These 2 tribes have different names: Khereid - Qaraei. Do you see any connection? Toghuchar (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support and may I point out that Users Sczc and Toghuchar are blocked sockpuppets of User:Ancientsteppe so their votes don't count. I want to clarify that much of this and the Qaraei article should be merged, but then the Qaraei and this article could be turned into smaller articles dealing with the modern Mongolian and the modern Iranian tribal groups respectively.YuHuw (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is just vandalism by blocked user kaz and his sockuppets hongirid and yuhuw. . Their edits are very similar, all of them one person. 70% of article deleted by yuhuw: . This is obvious vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.9.40.25 (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2016

Kerait, Keraits, Khereid, Qaraei

Can someone please fix this??? If you look for Kerait you're redirected to Qaraei , look for the plural and you end up here?? That's just crappy linking. After a quick glance on both articles I feel that the first redirecting has to be removed cause in said article the Keraits are mentioned as a SEPERATE people so that makes no sense at all than to redirect to it as if they are the same. A1979s (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed YuHuw (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Image

Can someone edit the image please. It is inaccurate. The location of the Khereid was in Altai region. It is the White Tatars who were along the boarder of China. Chouvrtou (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this image is fine if this article will be much more finely focused on the modern Mongolian tribal designation. YuHuw (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

POV Issues

There are serious POV issues with this article. It is written from the point of view of modern Inner Mongolians and not from a historical point of view. The tribe are only known as Khereid in modern Mongolian dialects but were not known as Khereid in the original source materials. Although the modern descendants of the tribe among modern Mongolians are indeed called Khereid this is anachronistic to call the ancestral Turkic group by the name of some of their descendants among modern Mongolians. The image is entirely fabricated and does not reflect any historical reality. The ancestral group was converted to the Nestorian faith in Merv (modern day Mary in Turkmenistan). Of course the Khanate stretched over a vast area, but the center was closer to the western parts of modern day Sinjiang than Inner Mongolia. Khereid are the descendants of the Kara-Khitan alliance.

In short this article does not know what it is about. If it is about the Mediaeval Turkic Khanate then it should use the Mediaeval name. If it is about the modern descendants of that tribe among modern mongolians then it should keep the current name but focus on the modern mongolians instead of on the mediaeval Khanate.

Someone please sort it out or better still just delete it. In its current state it is just shameful. Chouvrtou (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree this article needs a complete re-write. YuHuw (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

I would like to invite User:Toddy1, User:202.9.40.25, User:202.9.41.173 and User:Hongirid to join the discussion **here** and refer to that at Talk:Karait. Please mention **here** why do you oppose the recent disambiguation of this page? Isn't it best if this article were about the modern Mongolian ethnic designation it is named for? Rather than about the ancient ancestral Kirgizian group who are not called Khereid in English, except for pages copying info from this page. I think it would be best to list the issues point by point. YuHuw (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I think it would be better to have the discussion here. Until 31 December 2015, Karait was a redirect page. This means that not many people have it on their watch lists. This page has a much longer history; so more people are likely to see it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That is what I said, **here**. I put in some markers in my previous comment for you to see it more clearly.

OK so "Watchlists" is one reason. Thank you. YuHuw (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to disscuss. user kaz blocked. yuhuw/hongirid are sockpuppets of kaz: , . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.9.40.25 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)‎

I assure you I am no sock-puppet. And please stop calling me Kaz, I have asked many times now. YuHuw (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have yet to see a case for moving chunks of this article into a content fork. If a content fork it to be created, please can it be created openly, rather than making redirect page into an article. There are quite a few spellings in English for the group covered by this article, which of course is confusing, but that is life. I think the best thing to do, would be to improve this article on the Khereid/Kerait people.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1, I do not think you are improving the situation by conflating random accusations of sock-puppetry with questions of content or content arrangement. Once we have dealt with the anonymous edit-warrior, there will still be ample time to discuss the merit of splitting or lumping among grown-ups. --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

ok, I see this is a sad mess. We need to throw all below-par sources, and establish clearly which sources make a distinction between the Khereid and the Karait and which do not. The two groups are so hopelessly conflated that I cannot tell if they are identical. --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed. I would also like to point out that I have discovered the current article was renamed "Khereid" (which is the name of a modern Mongolian tribal designation) from from Kerait and continually reverted back to its current state by the sockpuppets of User:Ancientsteppe which are listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ancientsteppe the re-naming took place here and here YuHuw (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Kerait redirect which is an accepted variant on the original English form Karait was reverted to another Ancientsteppe sockpuppet's version here (see User:Toghuchar). YuHuw (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

yes, ok, apologies all around, we were once again fooled by the "Barefact"/"Ancientsteppe" troll, because Misplaced Pages cannot get its act together and permaban a clearly disruptive user. The situation is in effect very clear. The topic is that of the Keraites (this is the normal English form of their name), a proto-historic Turco-Mongol group absorbed into the Mongol Empire in 1203. de:Keraiten is an example of how a sane encyclopedia article on this group would look like. Then there are various similar-sounding names of later groups, which may or may not derive from them and may or may not involve descent claim, all of which can be treated matter-of-factly in a "legacy" section. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be very happy to see all the other articles on similar named people permanently re-directed here to be dealt with in the legacy section especially if their numbers are insignificant. For example are there any statistics on the number of Khereid living in Mongolia today or on Qaraei in Iran today etc.? I think they can all be dealt with here. YuHuw (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could read German, it is an extremely important language for academia. YuHuw (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the image which is User:Khiruge's own work can not be used here as it disagrees entirely with the academic sources. YuHuw (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither is the Kara-Khitan state under which the Keraites were vassals part of Mongolia or China today. YuHuw (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to archive the discussions before this section? YuHuw (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You can always use google translate to read articles in langauges you aren't familiar with, I do that all the time. I think the general shape of this topic is now becoming clear, it is about a Mongol or Turco-Mongol group which can be traced during roughly 1000-1300. Anything after 1300 should go in the "legacy" section, including well-referenced descent hypotheses. I cleaned up the literature section, and no doubt much of the content we have here can be traced to some of this literature, but as it stands the article is still full of confused or unsourced statements. I agree that the map seems to conflict with the claim that they originate in northern Mongolia, but the question is, which "academic source" said what? The statement "Their original homeland was located between the mountain ranges of Khangai and Khentii Mountains along the Onon and Kerulen rivers" seem to be taken from Hamdani's account of c. 1300 (I did not verify if it does), while the map claims to be "partially (sic) based on Mongolian National Atlas, 2009". All of this needs verification. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank yuo very much dab, to me as a novice it looks very good. The only thing I can think of pointing out is that we must remember Hamandi's dates. He is not talking about their original location but where they were operating at the time he was writing (around 1300) which due to their at that time high royal status (Mongke Khan was the first Mongolian crown prince of the Keraites thanks to his mother) was naturally Karakoram, the capital of the Mongolian Empire. I can not edit the article at the moment because of the protection level as I am still a relatively new user here. but i think it looks very good. Is it possible to lock this page so that it can not be moved again by Ancientsteppe supporters? YuHuw (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not mean to block you from editing, I think you should be able to after five edits or so? Idk, the Mongols were notoriously mobile, so if we have one source placing them in northern Mongolia in the 11th century and another placing them in southern Mongolia in 1207, that's not necessarily a contradiction. We need to establish exactly what Hamdani did say and report that. Our best bet is to just work through the short article by Dunlop (1944) and represent that as our baseline. We can also report whatever we find in Tynyshbaev (1925), but this is probably not really necessary, because most of the basic facts will be in Dunlop (1944) anyway. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Mongols articles
• Mid-importance Mongols articles
• WikiProject Mongols articles
• C-Class Central Asia articles
• High-importance Central Asia articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• Start-Class Ethnic groups articles
• Mid-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles