Talk:Kaskians

message: Is E. von Shuler, Die Kaškäer: ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie des Alten Kleinasien (Berlin: de Gruyter) 1965 still the standard. I hasten to add that I haven't read it myself, but the article needs to point to some standard presentation of the topic. --Wetman (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard reference?

message: :Kaska is so generally the name of the "Kaskians" [sic] of Wikipedia that the following arrangement might be preferred:
*Kaska Dena, one of the First People of northwest North America.
*Kaska, the inveterate enemies of the Hittites.
*Kaska (disambiguation) disambiguating page with the above text.
Might there be drawbacks to such a change? Please respond here at Talk:Kaskians. --Wetman (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there no drawbacks then?--Wetman (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of wikistyle, the only way to accomplish that is to approve the name change, and I continue to oppose it (see next xection).  You say "so generally the name of" - but generally to whom?  Certainly not to lingiusts, or Athapaskan-field linguists anyway, as also the Kaska people who are alive, not thousands of years dead.  I'd say somewhere there's gonna be a Wiki guidelines about living people vs dead peoples and what's the "more general usage".  "Kaska Dean" does mean "Kaska people" anyway (name format for indigneous peoples in this region various, though, some with "people", some without; left off in some cases because redundnat, e.g. Skwxwu7mesh and Secwepemc where -mesh and -emc mean "people".  Kaska anyway is a modern endngered language, a living peoplek, and known generally in lniguistics and anthropology and BC/indiegneous peoples' pollitic and culture.  I'm rooting for them, but if you can prove there's more hits or whatever on the anti-hittite Kaskians, go ahead; but don't rejigger page titles without consensus, and I'd say we need an outside party;  Kaska language is another article, Kaska Dena First Nation (or whatever their badn-government name is) and so on are other articles.Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion

message: The Kaska are a living people, not an ancient/extinct one, that's one reason the Kaska article is primarily theirs; also "it was there first" and Wiki naming conventions operate on that principle.  Kaska as a people and a modern (if endangered) language is very widely known in linguistics, and also of course to the Kaska Dena themselves.  Also "Kaskian" is an English formation or who knows whta they called themselves; "Kaska" is how the Kaska Dena name their language and themselves, it's not an English variant, it's Kaska language.  So it has a priori that way, as a proper name in its original language, as well as a pre-existing title/article.Skookum1 (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaska

message: There is no single evidence of any possible connection, just might might might...
Georgians on the other hand were first referred to by Greek myth march of 10000s as Kardus(they call themselves kartli) in a distamt land than Blacksea(Armenians lived between them and blacksea  during their march from Euphrates).
And there are clear references in Hittite tablets to Kaska tribes, which suggests a NW caucasian connection. They may be remnants of Hatti(NW Caucasian), or a branch of Ari (aka Urartu, NE Caucasian). ANd Arabic name for NW caucasians was Kaskas during early arabic calypthe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.249.205 (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does Kaska have to do with Georgia? 

message: Please explain why are you removing the original edits? There is no such thing as the word "Qulkhi", but Kolkha know to the ancient Urartuans and Colchis was Mingrelian-Laz state.
Imorthodox23 (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources to back up your assertions?  Because I'm finding all kinds of sources agreeing that Qulhi is the word for them used in cuneiform tablets. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: There is no such things as finding our was it the letter "K" or "Q" in cuneiform tablets, read the articles about Colchis, it was knows as Kolkha or Kolkhida in the ancient times, in the kingdom of Urartu. Imorthodox23 (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I take that as a "no", you don't have any source backing up your assertion? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text:  I am sure that the word "Qulhi" might mean something else already, see the article about Colchis before you write something about it elsewhere, you can see the "Kolkha" written everywhere. 
By the way, you wrote forgot to mention letter "k", it's either "Kolkha" or "Qulkhi", the term "Qulhi" is not written anywhere. Imorthodox23 (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Here on wikipedia we go by reliable sources, and if you don;t have any, it really won't help us what you are sure of, or what you say your personal knowledge is.  When I looked for Qulhi, I found abundant sources agreeing that this was the cuneiform name for the region. That's what matters according to WP:VER. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with the word "Kolkha"

message: Why it is suggested that the Kaskians were related to Kartvelian people?
It looks like a nonsense, and like an idea that is harshly determined by a certain politics. 
Kaska are usually considered as a branch of Hattians who are rather close relatives of Abkhazo-Adygean people, but not Kartvelian (see: Igor M. Diakonoff, Itamar Singer, Ahmet Ünal). 
Also I am to tell that in the region where Kaska lived (according to Hittite chronicles) can be found some toponyms containing Northwestcaucasian roots.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe mantani (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why it is suggested that the Kaskians were related to Kartvelian? 

message: "The Kaska, probably originating from the eastern shore of the Propontis" is it true?
You can check the source here: https://www.twirpx.com/file/1723810/
I think it's not reliable. 
This book was written in 1960s. we need up-to-date resources. We dont know where Kaskians from yet. But, we guess where Kaskians region. For this, I can offer up-to-date resources here: https://www.academia.edu/9816488
Also, you can check the Turkish Kaskians article for more information: 
https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaşkalar
Finally, sorry for my useless English.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emre Güneş123 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Where Kaskians From