Talk:Oirats

message: What about splitting this into two articles? One on the Oirat/Kalmyk History, and then one on the Oirat ethnic group of Mongolia and China? Today they don't really fit into the category of "Kalmyk" of Russia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.106.234.100 (talk • contribs).
:I'm not an expert by any means, but I don't see a clear division line yet. Note that any of the following articles (and probably others) may include relevant information:
:*Oirats
:*Kalmyks#History
:*Esen Tayisi
:*Altay people
:*Dzungar
:*Kalmykia
:*Torgut Mongols
:Whatever change you propose in detail should make sure that no unnecessary redundancy between those is created. In any case you'll have to find good and reliable sources. This may be somewhat difficult because it is a rather obscure topic. Just as an example, a statement like "Perhaps also Derbet, Khoit, & Darkhat." clearly needs an attribution, or it will be qualified as Original Research. Maybe you have access to related scientific material, which would be great. --Latebird 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy with either a change or a big cleanup, but it is a really complicated thing--I'd be happy either way, with a Oirat ethnicity article, and a Oirat History or by putting them together. If we end up making an Oirat history article seperate, that can also be the Kalmyk early history, for the most part, which could be linked from the Kalmyk page. I don't think there is enough for the Torghut article yet, and if we start delving into the Oirat tribes we might as well start an Oolt page, and so on. The Russian Kalmyk page has a nice map of where Oirat is spoken (in Russian). That would be cool to change over here too. I'm happy to do whatever people in general want-as best as I can. --Erkin2008 20:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Does anybody know about the Derbet, Khoit, & Darkhat tribes--that is more then just thought? I only knew of the first four that are mentioned, but these were carried on from some older Wikipedia article.--Erkin2008 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split ethnicity and history? 

message: In NW Mongolia, the Oirat tribes are as follows:
*Choros (or Olot)
*Dorbet
*Khoit
*Torghut
*Khoshut
*Bayid
*Mangit
*Darkhat
*Urianhai
*Zakhachin
The first eight tribes listed above also call the Dzungaria region of NW China and the Amdo region of NE Tibet home.
In the early 17th century, the first three Oirat tribes listed above formed the Dzungar Khanate. The Khoshuts, otoh, formed the Khoshut Khanate in the Amdo region of NE Tibet. The Torghut tribe with minor elements of the Dorbet tribe migrated westward to the Caspian steppe to form what would become known as the Kalmyk Khanate.
--Buzava 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting information, what's the source? Maybe it is best to add all reliable facts (and references) to the article, and then figure out how to split the result.  --08:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm Kalmyk-Oirat and wrote about 98 percent of the Kalmyk article. --Buzava 14:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Which makes it especially important to avoid Original Research. I assume you're familiar with Wikipedia's requirements of Attribution? On the positive side, you might have access to sources that would be very difficult for others to access. Just list them as references and everything is fine. --Latebird 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Oirat Tribes

message: Total population: 166,000
Regions with significant populations
People's Republic of China 	166,000 	
Mongolia Mongolia 	        205,500 	
It seems that the total population is only that of China. I could easily add them up but i don't like to assume an article on wikipedia without citations is reliable so i won't just assume these numbers.  Just an FYI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers don't add up... 

message: The article contradicts name of Güshi Khan spelled differently in different articles all over the place and more importantly, Lha-bzang Khan is listed as great grandson here, but grandson on his own page of Güshi Khan.Jinnai (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The spelling of historical Mongol (and other) names tends to be somewhat volatile, so I wouldn't really see this as a contradiction (other than grandson vs. great grandson, of course). There are two possibilities to solve this: Ideally, you can demonstrate which spelling is most common en recent English language sources. If that is not possible, then you can search for the historical spelling in the traditional Mongolian script and transcribe from there. There's some discussion sprinkled over Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (Mongolian) about the best transcription system to use. The experts there are likely to lend a helpful hand. --Latebird (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contraditiction 

message: In 1207, Jochi subjugated forest tribes including Oirats. His father gave them to his eldest son for his bravery.  Most scholars agree that they were under the direct control of Yuan emperors. But some scholars said that Oirats headed by Khaidu were fighting against Khubilai. I read that Naimans were annexed by Khaidu around 1280's. Who was their supreme lord in the late Mongol Empire: Kublai, Khaidu or probably Jochids. Is there anyone know about it?.--Enerelt (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oirats under Chingisids 

message: Is it appopirate to add 瓦刺 this chinese name and redirect it to this article?Mark Mak (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since a significant nuber live in China, that seems perfectly appropriate to me. --Latebird (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Chinese Name 

message: As is explained in the articles Kalmyk people and Oirats, the two groups have the same origin. Specifically, the Kalmyks are a historical subgroup of the Oirats that have moved to the west. There is no justification for removing this information from the article. --Latebird (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalmyks and Oirats 

message: http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/ldtc/languages/kalmyk/history1.html
http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/ldtc/languages/kalmyk/oirats.html
http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/ldtc/languages/kalmyk/languageuse.html
http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/ldtc/languages/kalmyk/
Rajmaan (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: There is a massive amount of text above, and I have not sifted through all of it. I am unsure how widely scholarship accepts the theory that the Oirats are considered Mongol because of Qing dynasty policy. However, I agree that during the time of the Mongol Empire, they were not considered "Mongol." "Mongol" then was not an ethnonym but a political designation. Clearly, at some point, the Oirats became considered Mongolic. So far, only Rajmaan has supplied in depth scholarship as to why the Oirats are now considered Mongol. The Rossabi source above is intriguing, but does not specify the Oirats. Note also that Rossabi is still talking about Qing dynasty, only that Mongol identity developed as a reaction to Qing policy. It seems quite clear that it was during the Qing dynasty that the modern conception of a Mongol ethnicity developed, though the exact reasons for that might vary. There's no reason that it couldn't also have been the result of both Qing policies and reaction to those policies - a sort of feedback loop, if you will.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Its pretty clear that Rossabi was talking about Khalkha Mongols in Mongolia.Rajmaan (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Language is not necessarily a major factor of self-identification, so the language clue you suggest is not valid. You would be surprised how many divergent cases you could find in Amdo. In the absence of positive evidence for their self-assessment, we should be no means make any positive conclusions based on such abstract reasoning. I don't agree with your second claim either. As a linguist, I happily assign the label "Mongol" to all Mongolic-speaking peoples, whether or not they agree. Janhunen in his ethnography of Manchuria follows a similar approach. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not claimed any causal connection between language and self-assignment. Our only actual disagreement seems to be that I would give a known self-assignment priority over linguistic criteria. But then, does anyone actually dispute that the Oirats are Mongols by language? This whole dispute is kind of hard to understand... I would expect the Oirats/Kalmyks to be rather proud of their Mongol heritage, no matter how the Qing happened to classify them. --Latebird (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why outsiders call the family the "Mongolic" language family is because Mongols were the historically better known and dominant group (the people who created the Mongol empire), if it were the opposite case- if Oirats had instead built the "Oirat empire", then people would call it "Oiratic" language family, and people would debate on whether to label Eastern Mongols as "Eastern Oirats". This is similar to the Iroquoian languages of North America, where linguists arbitrarily chose the name of the better known Iroquois and then named the entire language family after them, including the Iroquois's enemies, the Huron, and with the Japonic languages, where the better known Japanese language was used to label the entire family instead of the Ryukyuan languages. Linguists chose one language to designate the entire language family without actually consulting all the speakers.Rajmaan (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Past and present designations can also be very different. 120 years ago, an ordinary Uyghur would have gaped at you in extreme confusion if you asked them if they were a "Uyghur". Now, Uyghurs fiercely believe that they are all descendants of the Uyghur Khaganate and its rightful heirs and would balk at anyone suggesting otherwise. For Oirats we have to clearly differentiate between what Oirats in the past thought from what Oirats consider themselves now, especially since the Chinese government enforces the label Mongol on them, classifies them as Mongols and makes them learn Chahar Mongol and Mandarin instead of Oirat in schools.Rajmaan (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from an uninvolved user

message: The sentence "the Oirats were composed of four major tribes" has been recently changed to "the Oirats were composed of four major ethnic groups". Are they considered as tribes or ethnic groups? Thanks for suggestions. --Cartakes (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Its tribes, and we still haven't resolved the issue in the above sections over Mongol vs Oirat. The ip address is watching the article and will probably edit war if anyone tries to oppose his point of view.Rajmaan (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have changed "ethnic groups" back to "tribes". As for the Mongol vs Oirat, how about summarize your content and show what you are going to add here? IMO there does not need to be too much text for writing the Mongol vs Oirat issue. --Cartakes (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That said, your content is absolutely useful for improving Wikipedia articles. Just may not be too long for this particular issue. Please don't hesitate to show your text if you find it useful. --Cartakes (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks for showing your text. I find it useful (although I think there should be some wikilinks if you put it in the article). Any opinion from other editors? --Cartakes (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribes or ethnic groups? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Oirats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130613195921/http://www.kalm.ru/en/hist.html to http://www.kalm.ru/en/hist.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Oirats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oirad.mn/2011/12/%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2-%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD-%D0%BD%D2%AF%D2%AF%D0%B4%D1%8D%D0%BB/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140118064901/http://www.minorityrights.org/2497/russian-federation/kalmyks.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/2497/russian-federation/kalmyks.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150615053400/http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/ldtc/languages/kalmyk/ to http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/ldtc/languages/kalmyk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified