Talk:Kyrgyz people

Spelling

The article can't seem to decide on how to spell Kirghiz/Kyrgyz (nor can other articles (Kyrgyzstan and Kyrgyz language use Kyrgyz)). TimBentley (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The 'gh' is the British spelling. The 'y' and 'g' standalone is the preferred Kyrgyz government transliteration. However publications still come out with not only those but Kirgis, Kirgiz... In Cyrillic it is Кыргыз, which would favor the 'y' spelling. Chris 01:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Weren't the kirgiz a Celtic people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.194.225.164 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 February 2007.

No. Khoikhoi 08:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

tribal unions of Sakas and Usuns, Dinlins and Huns

To my fellow editors I want to copy the bibliography that Abramzon gives in the note to his statement about Kirgiz descent from tribal unions of Sakas and Usuns, Dinlins and Huns:

A.N.Bernshtam: 1) Question of origin of Kirgiz people; 2) Arrival of Kirgizes in the Tien Shan in 9-10 cc.; 3) Archeological sketch of Northern Kirgizia. Frunze. 1941, p. 46 on; S.P.Tolstov, Primary problems of ethnogenesis of peoples in Middle Asia. In book: Soviet ethnography, 6-7, 1946, pp. 303-304; S. V. Kiselev, Ancient history of Southern Siberia. М., 1951; Yu. Zuev. 1) Term "Kyrkun". Question of ethnic origin of Kyrgyzes in Chinese sources. TII, issue 4, 1958; 2) Ethnic history of Usuns. Works of Hist., Arheol., and Ethnogr. Inst. of Academy of Sciences KazSSR, vol. 8; New materials on ancient and medieval history of Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata. 1960; S.M.Abramzon, Kirgizes. Soviet Historical Encyclopedia, vol. 7, page 277. (In Abramzon S.M. "Kirgizes and their ethnogenetical historical and cultural connections", Moscow, 1971, p. 423)Barefact (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kyrgyz#Origins

The History of Kyrgyzstan article is about the history of the territory of Kyrgyzstan, not of the Kyrgyz themselves. While some info on their origins is relevant, the majority of the "Origins of the Kyrgyz people" section belongs in the Kyrgyz article, not in the History of Kyrgyzstan article. Otebig (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Image really from 1905-1915?

Is the image of the Kyrgyz family really from 1905-1915? That seems dubious, given the picture quality and original resolution. ask123 (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's plausible. The photographer - Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky - was a pioneer of color photography and was taking photos like this at that time. Also, the color "imperfections" in this image (e.g. around the man's right eye) are consistent with his technique. The high resolution is not a problem: a 35mm photo scanned from the original negatives can easily be blown up to this size (or more). Finally, the photo is part of a collection purchased by the US Library of Congress from Prokudin-Gorsky's family. In other words, I think it's probably fine. ;) -- Hux (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Kyrgyz and Pushkin

There are many references of Kyrgyz in the novel The Captain's Daughter by the Russian novelist Alexander Pushkin published in 1836. However, Kyrgyzstan and the theater of war in Pugachev's Rebellion (which is the theme of the novel) are too far away. It is certain that Pushkin's Kyrgyz people are other Central Asiatic people like Kazakh. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; as far as I remember, history books usually have a footnote saying that in the 18th through early 20th century, "Kirghiz" (киргиз) in Russian referred to the Kazakhs, while when the time came to talk about the Kyrgyz people as we know them, they were called "Kara Kirghiz". Vmenkov (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it confusion?

"Genghis Khan's oldest son Jochi occupied Kyrgyzstan without resistance." Is it confusion? To my uinderstanding, Jochi conquered Oin Irgen or those peoples who lived around Yenisey (approximately modern Tuva) without resistance. That may have included the Yeniseyan Kyrghyz, but not the modern territory of Kyrghyzstan. Gantuya eng (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Bubusara Beyshenalieva.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bubusara Beyshenalieva.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 3 April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bubusara Beyshenalieva.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Related groups

Related groups - Russians?! Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello wikipedia contributors 
> I,m writing to you cause when I was reading a topic "Kyrgyz people" i found some
> mistakes. In section "Related ethnic groups"  it was Mongols and Tuvans that are
> not related to Kyrgyz people. Mongols and Tuvans are different nations with
> different culture and race. As you know Kyrgyz people are Turkic speaking people
> and related to Turanian race (Mixed with European and Mongoloid race or  Turanian
> race).  But Mongols and Tuvans related to Mongoloid race. Tuvans are also turkic
> speaking people but genetically they are mongoloid and culturally they are
> different. So please can you fix it. Mongolians and Tuvans are not related to
> kyrgyz people.
> Thank you in advance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Labrador840 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC) 

Religion

In article it is said that Kyrgyz people are predominantly Muslims. But some users add Tengrism, Christianity, Shamanism in infobox as well, whereas there is no info about it anywhere. Can someone clarify the situation? Thanks, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

Hello wikipedia contributors I,m writing to you cause when I was reading a topic "Kyrgyz people" i found some mistakes. In section "Related ethnic groups" it was Mongols and Tuvans that are not related to Kyrgyz people. Mongols and Tuvans are different nations with different culture and race. As you know Kyrgyz people are Turkic speaking people and related to Turanian race (Mixed with European and Mongoloid race or Turanian race). But Mongols and Tuvans related to Mongoloid race. Tuvans are also Turkic speaking people but genetically they are mongoloid and culturally they are different. So please can you fix it. Mongolians and Tuvans are not related to kyrgyz people. Thank you in advance.

Indo-European Speakers

I was read on article "Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA) is often believed to be a marker of the Proto-Indo-European language speakers." İt's a hypothesis, and not certain. I think it's a sided setence and should be remove. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

What about the wording "often believed" (which you bolded yourself!) does not indicate that the connection is a hypothesis and not certain? *facepalm* Obviously you understand English well enough, why do you ask such idiotic questions? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Careful your language. Why did you remove the other sources? Your sided and nationalistic actions too obvious. Stop pushing your POV! Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

ps: The issue is obvious vandalism and insulted language. Wikipedia admins should be check this article and the user. Thanks.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment User:Florian Blaschke did a right revert: [1]. User:Su4kin falsified the source: [2]. There is no mention of Proto-Turkic in that source. R1a is an Europid haplogroup. It's a marker of Indo-Iranians and Slavs. R1a is not related to Mongoloids/Asiatics (Turks and Mongols). The source is OK, but User:Su4kin's edits and your comments are problematic, non-neutral and biased. It seems that you and him try to insert nationalistic POVs to this article and other articles. Do you really can't understand Florian's comment?! --59.13.178.210 (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC) And another newest dna research: DNA Genealogy and Linguistics. Ancient Europe this source mentioned "proto-turkic." (see especially: page 103 and 108) The information about r1a is pretty misleading and should be corrected. Thanks Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that over-reliance on one primary source is not good practice. The general trend of the evidence is that the Kyrgyz, exactly as stated in their founding story, are a mixed people. Abductive (reasoning) 14:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for interests. But no one talking about kyrgyz peoples' "racial purity." Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • So, you are saying that R1a1 can't really be used as evidence for anything? Abductive (reasoning) 15:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I'am not saying. Check the sources I lefted. R1a1 also called "kurgan genes." (see Kurgan hypothesis) For ex: "According to Alineli (2001) the Kurgan culture introduced Turkic, not Iranian..." DNA Genealogy and Linguistics. Ancient Europe Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
        • What is needed is a secondary source that frames the debate. Abductive (reasoning) 18:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
        • That paper is arguing against Alineli, saying his theories are wrong on both genetic and linguistic grounds, Also, Alineli falls firmly in the fringe camp. Furthermore, it doesn't claim R1a1 is a sign of Proto-Turkic. It says that R1b bearers might have spoken Proto-Turkic...or Sino-Tibetan languages, or "Dene-Caucasian" (not a generally accepted family). Ergative rlt (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yagmurlukorfez is an idiot Turk. Such a funny moron. --46.143.214.22 (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This guy can't distinguish things. That source is specific. There is no so-called proto-turkic on that source. These two users try to insert their Pan-Turkist povs into articles. They falsified the cited source. His question and comments are perfect idiotic and bandwidth waste. --46.143.214.22 (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)