Talk:Kalmyks

message: Probably PD-old - source archiv.nnov.ru Halfcookie (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Kalmyk family in 1890s 

message: This article uses "Genghis Khan" and "Chingis Khan" within 2 sucessive paragraphs to describe (I assume) the same person.  Can it pick one consistent spelling?
DB Sullivan
72.75.88.144 03:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: this article needs to be fixed. It's writing style is not very encyclopedic and it's grammar is, well, horrible. I would fix it myself, but I'm not well-versed on this topic
--?
===== Why was the majority of this article's content removed? =====
I have looked at the history of this article, and, particularly given the number of people who contributed to it prior to the second 130.149.156.18 version, I see no reason to let those excisions stand. I don't see any reason to just revert, however, as that would effectively delete the new content. So I will instead attempt to merge both prior versions into one fuller article.
There was no discussion about the big change, either before it happened on 25 October, or by anyone who's edited the article since. If there's some good reason why any of this information shouldn't be included -- plagiarism, inaccuracy, etc. -- then it can be removed again, but the reason should really be noted here.
--The Jack 01:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ....... 

message: I have looked at the history of this article, and, particularly given the number of people who contributed to it prior to the second 130.149.156.18 version, I see no reason to let those excisions stand. I don't see any reason to just revert, however, as that would effectively delete the new content. So I will instead attempt to merge both prior versions into one fuller article.
There was no discussion about the big change, either before it happened on 25 October, or by anyone who's edited the article since. If there's some good reason why any of this information shouldn't be included -- plagiarism, inaccuracy, etc. -- then it can be removed again, but the reason should really be noted here.
--The Jack 01:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the majority of this article's content removed? 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support. --Khoikhoi 05:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no difference. It's just a different way to say it. And besdies, numerous pages have been moved recently (not by me), such as Azerbaijanis, Pashtun, and Persians. --Khoikhoi 08:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mh. All of those are now back at "... people", though. —Nightstallion (?) 08:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant they were just moved to "people" recently for the 1st time. The pages that you see above is what they used to be at. --Khoikhoi 08:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Either way, I'm disinclined to move this page if it seems common practice is exactly opposite to it... —Nightstallion (?) 18:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: Calmouk, Batrun -
Per WIKIPEDIA policy, articles are requited to meet three standards:
# Articles must be written in a neutral point of view;
# Facts, viewpoints, theories and claims in articles must only be included if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources; and
# Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. 
I've cited at least two of my sources. So far, you have done nothing but express your personal opinions. Please provide citations. 
--Buzava 01:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Citing ignorants does not prove anything. This is a map from the Library of Congress which was created in the beginning of 18th century - http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/gmd:@field(SUBJ+@od1(Russia--Siberia+))  If you provide the same century's source where Kalmyks (Oirats) were named Mongols then we will discuss further. Calmouk 04:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignorance? The fact that you cite only a lousy map speaks volumes about your ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity and development. --Buzava 05:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lousy map? It is how you name a historical PRIMARY SOURCE? This "lousy map" nullifies "opinions" of thousands modern ignorants like yourself Calmouk 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guys, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Such mode of discourse is unacceptable and may lead to blocking action. --Ghirla | talk 17:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This winter marks the 235th anniversary of Ubashi Khan's return to China. If you so badly want to be reunited with the Oirats, then I suggest you follow that fool's path to China. I'm sure your Chinese Daddy will be proud.--Buzava 05:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You speak on behalf of the Oirats like a true Communist. Do you tell them what to eat and wear?--Buzava 05:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Buzava, please don't make any personal attacks. Try to be respectful. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 05:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Why you call me Communist when you yourself are following by Communist's direction? Dividing our nation on Kalmyks and Oirats was "invention" of Soviet Union regime. And declaring Oirats as Mongols was  "invention" of Communist Mongolia and China. Mongolia and China still do not recognize Oirats at all! Oirats are not in the list of officially recognized nationalities of China. Mongolia recognizes Dorvuuds and Torguuts but not Oirats! And they have their own good political reasons to do so. Calmouk 17:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CITE YOUR SOURCES

message: Calmouk, Batrun, Wincent -
http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/kalmyks.pdf#search='genetic%20kalmyks'
"The genetic results support the historical record in that they indicate a close relationship between Kalmyks and Mongolians." 
--Buzava 02:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not clear who were taken as Mongolians in their research. Mongolians could be Oirats of Mongolia. In my opinion their work has very low credibility Calmouk 14:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic Relationship Between Kalmyks and Mongols 

message: Wikipedia's NPOV policy prevents articles from taking an editorial stand on disputed issues.  The way to represent the difference of opinion between the editors is for each side to explain its view and the reasons behind it, providing as many line citations as possible.  References do matter, especially where disputes exist.  Right now the talk page has more references than the article.  That's the reverse of what ought to happen.
While an English language encyclopedia should use English language references whenever possible, some sources for this article might have to be in Russian or Chinese.  Bilingual Wikipedians might help translate short passages for Wikipedia's readers.
I see German has been used as an example on this talk page.  It's a useful analogy.  To look at the last 200 years, it hasn't always been clear that Germany and Austria would emerge as different national identities.  It would be interesting to see what notable Oirats and Kalmyks have to say: how much of their leadership regards them as one people or two?
Personal family history has a limited place in encyclopedic editing.  Over at German American I'm party to a polite dispute about the decline of the German language in the United States.  I happen to be among the three percent of these people who speak German.  While this gives me enough insight to challenge an unsourced statement from another editor, it doesn't authorize me to rewrite the article.  Oral history is a weak sort of evidence and oral history with no previous publication would constitute original research.
Regards, Durova 18:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow up: I'd like to refer the editors here to Wikipedia:No angry mastodons#Move references to the project page. Durova 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Many of the ethnic groups in the United States have their own articles.  This one specifically address the history and experience of German immigrants and their descendants.  The German people page links to several articles about ethnic Germans outside the main German speaking countries, including Germans of Namibia and Germans of Romania.  There's also a German-Brazilian article.  In general, the subject of (ethnic group X) in (country Y) has encyclopedic merit. Durova 23:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm interested in documenting the story of the Kalmyk people of Russia for the general public to read because I think its an interesting story. But there are several people here who want to roll back the article under Oirat for anti-Russian, anti-Mongolian and anti-Chinese propaganda purposes. Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of this nonsense. --Buzava 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I propose to have main article Oirats (Kalmyks) which should contain information mainly about Dörvn Öörd before 1771. And additional articles named as Oirats (Kalmyks) of Russia, Oirats of China and Oirats of Mongolia where we can place information about specific groups of Oirat people. And no more Western Mongols please! Calmouk 05:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could construct a general "Oirats and Kalmyks" article and subsidiary articles about these people as ethnic groups in various countries? Durova 05:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, main article should be "Oirat (Kalmyk) people" and subsidiary articles like Kalmyk (Oirat) people of USA, "Kalmyk (Oirat) people of Russia", Oirat (Kalmyk, Dzungar) people of China, Oirat (Kalmyk) people of Mongolia. Names Oirat, Dzungar and Kalmyk are absolutely interchangeble but usage of particular name depends on country. For example, everybody calls German people as Nemtsi in Russia. So we can create article "Nemtsi" or article "German people of Russia" and second name is more appropriate, I think. Calmouk 13:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm a little hesitant about having made that suggestion because there seems to be disagreement about how much similarities and differences these two names represent.  BTW there's already an article for Volga German. Durova 16:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Names Oirat, Dzungar and Kalmyk are absolutely interchangeble. The same as "Nemtsi" and "German". BTW Russian Wiki articles about Kalmyk and Oirats should be reconfigured also. Calmouk 18:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Oldest Western map where Kalmyks were mentioned (as far as I found) is a map from "Cosmography" of Sebastian Munster (1488-1552), which was published in 1544 -> http://bspu.ab.ru/Faculty/History/atlas/img/30.gif
On that map Kalmucks (which is German transcription) are shown between Irtysh and Ob rivers. Munster obtained his information from Russian informants. Name Oirat was not used even by Russians till 19th century. Calmouk 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I met Oirats from China last summer here in the United States. They identified themselves by their tribal name.--Buzava 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you ask them whether they consider themselves as Oirats? I also identify myself by a tribal name but I do consider myself as Oirat (Kalmyk) so I don't see any contradiction. Batrun 11:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think so my dear Buzava. Batrun 11:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oirat, Kalmyk, Kalmuck, Calmouc - different names of the same people 

message: I also found a remarkably biassed account of the invasion in the EB article on Kazakhstan, written by Kazakh scholars:
From the 1680s to the 1770s, the Kazakhs were involved in a series of wars with the Oyrat, a federation of four western Mongol tribes, among which the  Dzungars were particularly aggressive. In 1681-84 the Dzungars, led by  Galdan, launched a devastating attack against the Great Horde. The unification by Teьke Khan (1680-1718) of the three hordes brought a temporary reversal in the fortunes of war, and in 1711-12 a Kazakh counteroffensive penetrated deep into Dzungar territory. Teьke's achievements were not limited to war; he also was responsible for the creation of a Kazakh law code, an amalgam of Kazakh customary and Islamic laws.
In 1723 Galdan's successor Cevang Rabtan was again on the attack. Aided by Swedish officers who had been made Russian prisoners at the Battle of Poltava (1709) and had found their way to these distant parts, the Dzungars launched a devastating invasion of the eastern Kazakh lands. The memory of this national catastrophe, "the Great Disaster," has never faded among the Kazakhs. The next and last Dzungar invasion hit the Middle Horde, but thanks to the skills of that horde's khan, Abu`l-Khayr (1718-49), who managed to forge a temporary all-Kazakh alliance, it was less devastating. Final deliverance from the Dzungar plague came in the form of  Chinese (Manchu) intervention; in 1757-58 the  Ch'ien-lung emperor launched two major campaigns, in the course of which the Dzungars were, for all practical purposes, exterminated and their land incorporated into China. For a time, the wily  Ablai Khan of the Middle Horde had chosen not to take sides in the Dzungar-Chinese conflict. But, once the scores were settled, Ablai found it prudent to offer his submission to the Ch'ien-lung emperor. Then, in 1771, Ablai was confirmed as ruler by both the Chinese and the Russians. As a result of the collapse of Dzungar power, the Chinese inherited a vast territory that extended to Lake Balkhash and beyond, far into the Kazakh steppes.
The brunt of the Dzungar wars was carried by the Great Horde; the Middle and Little hordes fared better, partly because they moved westward toward Russian-held territories. In 1730 Abu`l Khayr, khan of the Little Horde, swore allegiance to the tsarina Anna Ivanovna. --Ghirla | talk 16:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oyrat invasion of Kazakhstan 

message: I suggest to have main article "Oirat (Kalmyk) people" and subsidiary articles Kalmyk (Oirat) people of USA, "Kalmyk (Oirat) people of Russia", Oirat (Kalmyk, Dzungar) people of China, Oirat (Kalmyk) people of Mongolia. Names Oirat, Dzungar and Kalmyk are absolutely interchangeble but usage of particular name depends on country.  Calmouk 05:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Wikipedia is B.S. Anyone can read misinformation on the Internet, claim to be an expert on the topic and then make changes on the spot without providing adequate support. I guess I'll have to write my own web page.--Buzava 14:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Am I The Only Person Editing Pursuant To NPOV?

message: Map of 1708 clearly shows that "the move west" is not correct term to reflect expansion of Kalmyk people Calmouk 04:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the move west"? 

message: If somebody has it please bring it for further discussion here Calmouk 04:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no historical evidence that Oirats have called themselves as Mongols 

message: There are 4 major dialects of Oirat (Kalmyk) language - Derbet, Torgout, Khoshout and Oloot. There is no such dialect as Buzava. Buzava are mix of Derbet, Torgout and Oloot (Dzungar) Kalmyks. Calmouk 14:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialects of Kalmyk 

message: It appears your attempts to edit the article to reflect your own personal opinions has failed. Do you want me to write the history section, from 1600 to present, myself? Or sections on literature, social organization ("Yasn"), notable Kalmyks and even infamous Kalmyks. I can also contribute maps and photos. But I'm more than willing to let you two complete the article. 
Btw, are you two (or one) going to attend the Tsagan Dinner Party in Philadelphia this March? Perhaps I'll meet you there. ROFLMAO!!!--Buzava 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Buzava this is not a place for personal messages. Please, visit http://forum.freekalmykia.org Batrun 17:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So lets create main article "Oirat (Kalmyk) people" and subsidiary articles like Kalmyk (Oirat) people of USA, "Kalmyk (Oirat) people of Russia", Oirat (Kalmyk, Dzungar) people of China, Oirat (Kalmyk) people of Mongolia. I also can contribute some photos to section Kalmyk (Oirat) people of USA Calmouk 18:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calmouk/Batrun

message: "The Derbet dialect was spoken by Derbets living in the Astrakhan and the Stavropol provinces. The Derbets from the Astrakhan province were called "Little Derbet," whereas those in Stavropol were called "Greater Derbet." The Torghut and Khoshot dialects were also spoken in the Astrakhan province. The Kalmyk dialects vary somewhat, but the differences are insignificant."
This information is obsolete and was true in 19 century so I removed this part. At present time there are no Dorvud people living in Astrakhan and Stavropol regions. 
Buzava, please, do not put your obsolete information and I hope God will forgive you your deeds.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stavropol_Region
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrakhan_Oblast
Batrun 13:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsolete information

message: I've noticed today that there is a “Халимаг” article on the Mongolian Wikipedia. A bot removed an interlanguage link on Kalmykia to it on 2005-07-16. Would it fit here instead? I don't understand Mongolian, so I cannot figure out what exactly  is. Wikipeditor 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, there is one editor here who does not recognize the difference between Kalmyks and Mongols. Calmouk 03:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, there is no NPOV in a “Халимаг” article on the Mongolian Wikipedia. This article reflects exclusively Mongol point of view. Highly politizied. In favor of Mongols. As I tried to explain earlier, Kalmyk (Oirat) people of Mongolia are not recognized a a separate nation. Oirats, such as Dorvuuds, Torguuts, Oleets, are subjects af assimilation. Kalmyk (Oirat) language does not have any status and exists only as domestic (home) language. There are no written Kalmyk (Oirat) language in Mongolia (despite that Oirats (Kalmyks) have even their own script known as Todo Bichig): no books, no newspapers, no radio, no TV. Calmouk 03:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand you have objections about the accuracy of the Mongolian article. However, any bias/inaccuracy in the Mongolian WP's is not the issue here. It is NOT a reason for removing interlanguage links, at least as long as everybody agrees that the Mongolian word “” and the English word “Kalmykia” (or “Kalmyk people”, I don't speak Mongolian) are basically the same, regardless of any alleged difference or relationship between the Mongolian people (which should not be the subject of this discussion) and the Kalmyk people. We don't remove interlanguage links to other articles just because they're biased, do we?—Wikipeditor 12:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus, and the vote itself reeks of vote-rigging in favour of the move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongolian interlanguage link 

message: Due to his/her intransigence and transparent political agenda, I am requesting that Calmouk be permanently blocked from this article. --Buzava 23:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try posting this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or just Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, or both.  --Khoikhoi 23:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop crying and start writing, but read NPOV before you start.--Buzava 14:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw, your assumption is false. But that's irrelevant.--Buzava 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: Block Calmouk 

message: --Buzava 06:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this article would've been completed last month, but I've wasted too much time deleting your acts of vandalism.--Buzava 21:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You or Khoikhoi just deleted photo of new Elista temple. Why, vandals?  Calmouk 05:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not delete your photo, but I did add two images of Kalmyk khuruls. The first image - the Khoshotovsky Khurul - was added to give readers a visual image of what was destroyed by Stalin. The second image - Saksyusn Sune Monastery - was added to show readers that freedom of religion has led to a revival of organized Buddhism in Kalmykia. There's no need for a third image. It would be more appropriate to put your photo under the Republic of Kalmykia and label it the largest Buddhist temple in Europe.--Buzava 05:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Calmouk, are you an atheist? You bump down the Religion section whenever possible. If you were really Kalmyk as you claim, than you'd know Buddhism has been important to the Kalmyk people.--Buzava 05:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ah! You are so kind vandal! You just RESTORED a photo of the Golden temple! Unbelievable kindness! :) Calmouk 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calmouk, you and your followers didn't even know the name of the temple. I had to add the content, because you're too ignorant and illiterate to string a sentence together. You only added the photo because you were jealous of my photo additions, which includes substance.--Buzava 04:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  You are very inconsistant, Buzava. You just said my History section sucks :) It is because you are repeatedly deleting content of History section. Why you are deleting information about Calmucks before XVII century I do not understand. For instance, Gibbon is writing about Calmouks of XIV century. And you are deleting reference to Gibbon classic work!!!  This is simple example of vandalism! Calmouk 05:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kalmyk history begins in the early 17th century. Anything before it belongs on the Oirat page. You lost the first vote.--Buzava 06:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do you bump down the religious section? You're a nonbeliever.--Buzava 06:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is much better now than before this clash of opinions :) 

message: === A POV fork ===
A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable.
'move from Oyirad to Kalmyk people can be classified as a POV fork - you created a new article abou Kalmyk (Oirat) people.
:Calmouk, your logic is utter nonsense. Why are you and your friends trying to erase the history of the Kalmyk people? Are you arguing that the Kalmyk people never really existed?--Buzava 00:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know only two erasers here - Buzava and Khoikhoi. You are always erasing other POV opinions. For example, in Language section - it is clearly written that according opinions of some people there is such thing as Buzava dialect despite there is not. What is your problem? By deleting other POV opinions you are doing bias. Calmouk 05:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calmouk, you're the vandal. All you have done is express your personal opinion without supporting it with a scholarly citation.--Buzava 05:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance, how can you claim the Kalmyks/Oirats once had an empire that stretched from the Caspian Sea to the Chinese Wall, if the Kalmyk Khans submitted themselves and their people as subjects of the Russian Tsar? It doesn't add up.--Buzava 05:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Buzava, you are vandal and an ignorant in the same time. BTW Nobody deletes your contributions to Religion section. Regurding your claim that "Kalmyks were subject of Russian Tsar" - do you know that the Department of Foreign Affairs of Russian Empire transfered Kalmyks to the Department of Interior only in 1825? It means that till 1825 Kalmyks were considered by Russian Empire as a FOREIGN STATE.  Calmouk 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Kalmyks were self-governed as you imply, why did the majority of the population attempt to return to Dzungaria in January 1771?--Buzava 18:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How migration to Dzungaria proves that Kalmyks were subject of Tsar? It proves absolutlely opposite. Calmouk 18:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Empires don't fold voluntarily. The Kalmyks were dissatisfied with their living conditions and the tightening of governmental control over Kalmyk affairs. Tsarina Catherine II was a real bitch to the Kalmyk people.--Buzava 18:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Buzava, you have a very big breach in you ability to think logically. Only self-governed Kalmyks could make migration to Dzungaria. Did you get it? BTW Russia before XIX century has never been such a monolit as the Soviet Union used to be. Calmouk 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calmouk, once again you're wrong. The Kalmyks kept their planned exodus secret and fled in the middle of the night.--Buzava 04:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Buzava, you are absolutely non-critical consumer of bias information. How such a big migration can be held in secret? Answer - Only if Kalmyks have maintained very high degree of independancy. It is proven by the fact that in that time Russian Empire maintained connections with Kalmyks through Russian Department of Foreign Affairs. It means Kalmyks were considered by Russian Empire as a FOREIGN STATE. Calmouk 05:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah...One day the Kalmyks decided they didn't want to be burdened by the administrative details of running an empire. So they decided to terminate the Khanate's operations and return home to their ancient homeland to roam the land. Is that what you promote on your web site?--Buzava 06:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Violations of NPOV

message: A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable.
'move from Oyirad to Kalmyk people can be classified as a POV fork - you created a new article abou Kalmyk (Oirat) people.
:Calmouk, your logic is utter nonsense. Why are you and your friends trying to erase the history of the Kalmyk people? Are you arguing that the Kalmyk people never really existed?--Buzava 00:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know only two erasers here - Buzava and Khoikhoi. You are always erasing other POV opinions. For example, in Language section - it is clearly written that according opinions of some people there is such thing as Buzava dialect despite there is not. What is your problem? By deleting other POV opinions you are doing bias. Calmouk 05:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calmouk, you're the vandal. All you have done is express your personal opinion without supporting it with a scholarly citation.--Buzava 05:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance, how can you claim the Kalmyks/Oirats once had an empire that stretched from the Caspian Sea to the Chinese Wall, if the Kalmyk Khans submitted themselves and their people as subjects of the Russian Tsar? It doesn't add up.--Buzava 05:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Buzava, you are vandal and an ignorant in the same time. BTW Nobody deletes your contributions to Religion section. Regurding your claim that "Kalmyks were subject of Russian Tsar" - do you know that the Department of Foreign Affairs of Russian Empire transfered Kalmyks to the Department of Interior only in 1825? It means that till 1825 Kalmyks were considered by Russian Empire as a FOREIGN STATE.  Calmouk 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Kalmyks were self-governed as you imply, why did the majority of the population attempt to return to Dzungaria in January 1771?--Buzava 18:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How migration to Dzungaria proves that Kalmyks were subject of Tsar? It proves absolutlely opposite. Calmouk 18:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Empires don't fold voluntarily. The Kalmyks were dissatisfied with their living conditions and the tightening of governmental control over Kalmyk affairs. Tsarina Catherine II was a real bitch to the Kalmyk people.--Buzava 18:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Buzava, you have a very big breach in you ability to think logically. Only self-governed Kalmyks could make migration to Dzungaria. Did you get it? BTW Russia before XIX century has never been such a monolit as the Soviet Union used to be. Calmouk 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calmouk, once again you're wrong. The Kalmyks kept their planned exodus secret and fled in the middle of the night.--Buzava 04:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Buzava, you are absolutely non-critical consumer of bias information. How such a big migration can be held in secret? Answer - Only if Kalmyks have maintained very high degree of independancy. It is proven by the fact that in that time Russian Empire maintained connections with Kalmyks through Russian Department of Foreign Affairs. It means Kalmyks were considered by Russian Empire as a FOREIGN STATE. Calmouk 05:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah...One day the Kalmyks decided they didn't want to be burdened by the administrative details of running an empire. So they decided to terminate the Khanate's operations and return home to their ancient homeland to roam the land. Is that what you promote on your web site?--Buzava 06:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A POV fork 

message: Never heard about it. Probably it extinct long time ago. Buzava, plz give us a couple of examples from such a dialect Calmouk 05:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Batrun, I'm not a registered user at KalmykPhilly. So, no one knows me over there. You'd better clarify your smear or the Kalmyks there will think your insulting them.--Buzava 17:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw, I don't mind criticism. Just use your words carefully and try to be respectful. Afterall, the forum is tied in to a khurul.--Buzava 17:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are so fanny, Buzava :) Why don't you yourself use your words carefully and try to be respectful? The only person who always doing personal attacks is you, Buzava Calmouk 05:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Calmouk has already proposed the creation of Wikipedia in Kalmyk language. Batrun 11:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No one hates Buzava people, Buzava people are also Oirats(Kalmyks).  Please, Buzava be a bit more respectful to others. We all have the same flammable Oirat(Kalmyk) temperament. Batrun 11:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Buzava dialekt of Kalmyk language? 

message: Should this article be in :Category:Buddhism? I'm not sure it's a good idea to place whole ethnic groups in a category like that. On the other hand, mebbe there should be a :Category:predominantly Buddhist ethnic groups? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Buddhism 

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: Someone written here that "kalmyks live in mongolia". But oirad mongols who live in mongolia regard themselves only as west "MONGOLS" not as "KALMYKS". They call only oirads from kalmykia kalmyks. Here is alleged that that oirads in mongolia have no radio, no newspaper etc. I would only recommend to this people who put this allegation in the world to go to the uvs dictrict of the mongolia and to see. In contrast to kalmyks, who CANT even speak their own language, the oirads in the mongolia "FULLY" preserved their own customs and dialects. Here is alleged too that khalkha mongolians dislike/supress oirads. How could be it when the last two communist leaders, who together ruled the mongolia for 40 years, and the last parliament's president were oirad mongolians? 
I am myself a dorvod mongol from the uvs disctrict. I feel very sad that some kalmyks deny their roots. (PS: sorry for my bad english and i have no wikipedia account)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.33.247 (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The allegations you criticize are just as patently false as those you've made above.--Buzava 16:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalmyks vs. Oirads from Mongolia 

message: The article on Esen Tayisi says that 1. he was Oirad and 2. he did try to become Khan, so I think the second sentence in the Treatment as Non-Mongols might need some rewriting. Yaan 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oirad Khan

message: I was very surprised to see this in the article History of the Jews in Romania: "Kalmyk irregular soldiers in Ottoman service, who appeared in Bucharest at the close of the Russo-Turkish War of 1806-1812, exercised terror on the city's Jewish population. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906), 'They passed daily through the streets inhabited by the latter, spitted children on their lances, and, in the presence of their parents, roasted them alive and devoured them.'"  Yes, this quote really does come from the Jewish Encyclopedia.  I know that Jews had a tremendous influence on the people around them and that many other groups were cruel to the Jews, but I'm not sure I believe that our influence included prompting Kalmyks to break the final taboo.  Does anyone know if this statement about the Kalmyk soldiers is true?  BTW, I've also read a fair amount about the history of cannibalism and am surprised I haven't come across this elsewhere.  --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Defamatory statement about Kalmyk cannibalism(!) in [[History of the Jews in Romania]] article

message: Is that a politician or something? 76.197.178.162 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is that on the bottom picture? 

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) 02:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The page says there are Muslim Kalmyk people in Kyrgyzstan but  does not list Kyrgyzstan as where Kalmyk people live. Seems contradictory. Kavas (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalmyk in Kyrgyzstan?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kalmyks. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kalmyks. 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/20070927213350/http://www.nupi.no/cgi-win/Russland/etnisk_b.exe?Kalmykian to http://www2.nupi.no/cgi-win//Russland/etnisk_b.exe?Kalmykian
*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
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) 12:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: List of ethnic groups in China says there are Kalmyks in China, so can "China" (and the population of Kalmyks there) be added to the infobox at the top right of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Add "China" to infobox

message: In Jerzy Kosinski's well known and controversial book The Painted Bird the Kalmyks are discribed commiting horrible attrocities to the Polish population, send there by retreating Germans at the end of the war. We all know the Germans and Russians committed countless attrocities themselves but is there any research done on what really did happen?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.90.39 (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Painted Bird