Talk:Yenisei Kyrgyz

message: ===Relationship to the modern Kyrgyz===
====Term "Ethnicity"====
"Culturally and linguistically, the Yenisei Kirghiz were Turkic. But ethnically they may be a mixture of different people."This passage needs some clarification. It shows the American usage of the word "ethnic". For Americans, "ethnic" has a racial meaning, i.e., physical features. For the rest of the World, "ethnic" 
means cultural features, including language. 85.138.82.190 (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Interpreting to sources is not our job in WP. As I'am always say, wikipedia is not care personel believes, concerns, assumptions etc.  Beside, modern serious scholars -include pulleyblank- do not base to physical features for define to ethnic identity any more. This method is extremely unreliable. So, your "theory" about "language shifting" without any evidence is totally senseless.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, but why is in the article there no reference to to nor on one source that would confirm the identity of the subject matter and "Xiajiasi / Gekun/Jiankun"? o_O 5.18.167.105 (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethno-genetic connections

message: ====Term "Ethnicity"====
"Culturally and linguistically, the Yenisei Kirghiz were Turkic. But ethnically they may be a mixture of different people."This passage needs some clarification. It shows the American usage of the word "ethnic". For Americans, "ethnic" has a racial meaning, i.e., physical features. For the rest of the World, "ethnic" 
means cultural features, including language. 85.138.82.190 (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Relationship to the modern [[Kyrgyz]]

message: "Culturally and linguistically, the Yenisei Kirghiz were Turkic. But ethnically they may be a mixture of different people."This passage needs some clarification. It shows the American usage of the word "ethnic". For Americans, "ethnic" has a racial meaning, i.e., physical features. For the rest of the World, "ethnic" 
means cultural features, including language. 85.138.82.190 (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Term "Ethnicity"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion - [[Great Soviet Encyclopedia]] as a source

message: 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)
replies: text: Interpreting to sources is not our job in WP. As I'am always say, wikipedia is not care personel believes, concerns, assumptions etc.  Beside, modern serious scholars -include pulleyblank- do not base to physical features for define to ethnic identity any more. This method is extremely unreliable. So, your "theory" about "language shifting" without any evidence is totally senseless.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, but why is in the article there no reference to to nor on one source that would confirm the identity of the subject matter and "Xiajiasi / Gekun/Jiankun"? o_O 5.18.167.105 (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship to the ''Xiajiasi/Gekun/Jiankun'' in the earliest historical Chinese sources

message: Kyrgyz historians support view that Yenisei Kirghizs controlled large area (3,000,000-5,000,000 km2) after the fall of the Uyghur Khaganate and they lost their domain to the Khitan Empire in 924. But some historians, including B.Ushnitsky, P.Azbelev and Yu.Drobyshev support view that Yenisei Kirghizs never established large state and they controlled much smaller territories at their height: the western and eastern bank of the Yenisei River -Minusinsk Hollow and western Tuva. There is no clear information in Chinese books. Also there is no such called "Kirghiz empire" in List of largest empires. 
File:Asia 900ad.jpg and File:East-Hem 900ad.jpg clearly show that Kirghizs didn't control large area at that time. Sources in Russian language: В.Ушницкий: Кыргызский каганат - кочевая империя или раннее государство?, Дробышев Ю.И. "Политика киданей в Центральной Азии" П.П. Азбелев. Древние кыргызы. Очерки истории и археологии: Глава V. Эпоха, которой не было:енисейские кыргызы на рубеже тысячелетий. V.2. Кыргызы и Китай: о пределе доверия к летописям., П.П. Азбелев. Древние кыргызы. Очерки истории и археологии:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gecary (talk • contribs) 12:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Controlled territories 

message: Chinese and Yenisei Kirghiz alliance against the Uyghurs
https://books.google.com/books?id=NB6DEdAxLOsC&pg=PA114&dq=kill+the+foreigners+mountain&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMIp7WLxqHoxwIVx4yQCh1fwQnK#v=onepage&q=kill%20the%20foreigners%20mountain&f=false
09:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Alliance with China

message: How is their predecessor the Liao while they did not exist in 1219? 5.197.218.86 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessor 

message: As per Prof. Belorybkin re excavations in Zolotaryovskoye gorodische Askizi merchants seem to have trading interest and long stay in the city. They all were slain in battle when Mongols seized the city in 1242. Any comments, opinions will be welcome. Thank you in advance.--Numulunj pilgae 09:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Askizi culture bearers. Yenisei Kyrgyz?