Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyrgyz Confederation

Kyrgyz Confederation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A new state invented by the Foggy Kub participant, all sources in the article (except for the encyclopedia "Kyrgyzstan", which vaguely characterizes the union of tribes as a state entity, while not mentioning the term Kyrgyz confederation) do not mention the term Kyrgyz confederation in their sources, the user invented the currency, capital and even the official language of lmao. Even if you find something remotely similar to the consensus in academic science, then this article definitely deserves to be deleted as a hoax. The book by Barbara A. West does not mention at all that the Kyrgyz language was official in the "Kyrgyz confederation", there is just a simplified history of the Kyrgyz as tribes in the middle of the Altai and Tien Shan, this is to understand the full scale of the hoax. And yes, the name Dasht-i-Kyrgyz does not exist. Kazman322 (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Kazman322 (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the article was NOT created by me, and secondly, the name "Dasht-i Kyrgyz" is mentioned in this source:[1]. The language is mentioned in this source - [2].Foggy kub (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- The first source refers to the territory, not the state, in the second source there is no confirmation of the existence of the Kyrgyz Confederation. Kazman322 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - «in the early 20s of the 16th century, Muhammad-Kyrgyz, whom many Kyrgyz scientists, following O. Karaev, recognize as the first leader of the Kyrgyz tribal union», everything is mentioned directly. Foggy kub (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - About "Dast-i-Kyrgyz". Cited anonymous source of 1675/76 contains the only mention of the phrase "Dast-i-Kyrgyz": "And if any of you get to Tashkent, tell Ubaid Khan that I have gone towards Dasht-i Baglan and Dasht-i Kyrgyz". But let's read the following phrase of the source: "One Kyzylbash caught one Uzbek fellow of three to four hundred Uzbeks who scattered across the Steppe, and brought him to Bayram Khan. During the interrogation, he said: "Muhammad-Timur Khan and Abu Sa'id Khan went towards the fortresses of Baglan and Kyrgyz". Therefore, the term "Dasht-i", in this context, does not mean "state", but only the territory around a particular fortress, the fortress area. That is why attributing "Dasht-i Kyrgyz" the meaning of the "name of the state" to this phrase is an original study, which is based on an arbitrary false interpretation of a single mention in a single medieval source. It is important for us that a number of respected reputable modern historical sources analyze the subject of the article, interpret it exactly as described in the article, name the subject of the article exactly as it is done in Wikipedia. Otherwise, such a Wikipedia article will be an original study based on a biased selection and false interpretation of sources. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Dasht-i Kyrgyz" is not a fortress, but the name of the state, this is hinted at by the title of the head of the Kyrgyz "Padishah", which means "ruler, king." The article also mentions the union of Kyrgyz tribes under the beginning of Muhammad Kyrgyz (Tagai Biy). Foggy kub (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        You should not deliberately distort my statements, I was talking about "the territory around a particular fortress, the fortress area", but not a "fortress". In the text to which you refer, the author of the text clearly shows that they are talking about the same place, he calls it alternately "the area of fortresses", then "fortresses". And one more thing: it is impossible to refer to medieval primary sources, because, firstly, one should not refer to primary sources at all, and secondly, the interpretation of medieval sources is not allowed to be made by the Wikipedians themselves, this is an unacceptable original research. To interpret the meaning of medieval primary sources can only be made by recognized experts, not by Wikipedians. And one more important point: in general, it is impossible to introduce into Wikipedia something that is mentioned only 1 time in the world historical literature but only in 1 anonymous medieval source, which became available to science only in 2012. We should not be interested in medieval primary sources at all, only and exclusively the opinions of modern recognized experts, who have studied and described the subject of the article in detail in their scientific publications, are important to us. Let us recall the story told by the quoted source: the troops of the Iraqi Kyzylbash and Samarkand Chagatai attacked the Baghlan fortress in Afghanistan. This is the same Baghlan that is mentioned in the text as Dasht-i Baghlan. However, in the part where the siege of the Baghlan fortress is described, the area around the fortress is called "this vilayat". That is, Dasht-i Baghlan and the area around the Baghlan fortress (vilayat) it's the same thing. And now let's remember about the "Kyrgyz fortress", which is mentioned in the text first as "Dasht-i Kyrgyz", then "Kyrgyz fortress". At the same time, from the context, what I wrote earlier, it is obvious that the source is talking about the same place. The same fortress in the Kyrgyz Mountains was mentioned when "The Kyrgyz received this message just at the moment when, having loaded provisions on pack animals, they were already sending it to the Kyzylbash camp. They stopped the caravan with food, and hid themselves in the fortress."
        
        So, there is your interpretation, there is my interpretation. You're an dilettante, I'm an dilettante too. Neither your interpretation nor mine can be used in the article, isn't it? After all, the rules categorically forbid using of dilettante's interpretations of medieval primary sources. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Speaking about the sources, you, as I understand it, have not checked the other sources that I have cited, please read them and only then write something about this. Foggy kub (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        So, I conclude, we no longer consider valid your argument that the anonymous medieval source you cited allegedly "confirms" the existence of a state called Desht-i-Kyrgyz, isn't it? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe the name is not right, but the state existed and this is confirmed by my sources, which I have given below.Foggy kub (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, the name "Desht-i-Kyrgyz" is not correct. Let's gradually, step by step, deal with other arguments. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a source where everything is written in direct words [3]. Foggy kub (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, let's start analyzing the source you have given "Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia" © 2003 Paul Georg Geiss. Geiss actually mentions "Kyrgyz confederations" many times, and not a single "Kyrgyz confederation". Why? At p. 36 Geiss mentions: "Large Kyrgyz plemias like the Bugu, Sary Bagysh, Solto, Adigine or Saruu were tribal confederacies rather than tribes, since their composition changed." And now let's look at page 98, which you specified as "a source where everything is written in direct words". What is the name of this chapter? "Kyrgyz confederacies". One more time again: not "confederation" but "confederacies", plural form, isn't it?
  - The author begins by quoting a Chinese source from 1770, this source states that 220 years before (in 1550) "Two wings were formed, a northern and a southern one…. Each of these was internally divided into branches." Therefore, the Chinese source does not speak of a single "state" in the form of a "Kyrgyz confederation", but only that the Kyrgyz people did not unite, but, on the contrary, divided into two larger "wings", which were internally fragmented into many "branches". So, no unity, but partition and division. Why? Citation: "when the Khanate of Mughulistan declined, mountainous tribesmen regained their political independence and restructured their political affiliations". The author points out that "The division between a northern and a southern wing would also corresponded to the Kyrgyz confederative wings Ong Kanat (right wing) and Sol Kanat (left wing) which nomadised in northern and southern Kyrgyzstan." But were these "wings" solid "confederations" of Kyrgyz people, even if they were two different ones? No, because the author emphasizes that: "This loose confederation was not the only political alliance involving Kyrgyz, since Kyrgyz tribes sometimes formed military alliances with Kazakh tribes as well." And also "tribal territories were newly divided among tribes and tribal federations which also included considerable Mongol groups". Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps you are right, the source is not suitable, but I found a new source that mentions an independent state in the 15-16 centuries:[4]. Foggy kub (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia" © 2003 Paul Georg Geiss IS a suitable source regarding the history of the Kyrgyz people. But this source does not support your private point of view, it refutes it. It is forbidden in Wikipedia to tendentiously select only those sources that can somehow support the private point of view of the Wikipedia editor (the author of the article). On the contrary, this Wikipedia editor should present all solid sources, including those that contradict this private point of view and who is trying to drag into Wikipedia. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously Bertil Nygren is a political scientist and not an ethnographer, and this term is just a very general concept. Kazman322 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - and what do you mean by that? That the source is not reliable? Foggy kub (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        You are not looking for those specialized sources that consider in detail and argumentatively the history of the Kyrgyz people in the XV-XVI centuries, but in general any source that (as in this case) is dedicated to the XXI century Putin era, but the "independent state of the Kyrgyz people" in the XV-XVI centuries mentions only once with a single phrase. Bertil Nygren simply reproduces something that he once heard somewhere, most likely in non-academic Kyrgyz sources. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found another source confirming the existence of the Kyrgyz state in 1514 (as written in the article):[5].Foggy kub (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - in one of your articles it is written that the Kyrgyz khanate ceased to exist in 1514, that is, you yourself are confused in your own terms. Kazman322 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - judging by your words, then it is necessary to rename the article, since you no longer deny the existence of the article. Foggy kub (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources confirming the existence of this state: [6], [7]p.350 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foggy kub (talk • contribs) 13:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask for the term KYRGYZ CONFEDERATION. You can't just make up a term from clippings about the Yenisei Kyrgyz and just book references. Kazman322 (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - You asked for the sources of the existence of the state of the 16-18 centuries, I cited them, please, before a stupid answer, read all the sources, thanks. Foggy kub (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - [8] P.176-179 It mentions the consolidation of the Kyrgyz tribes into a state with their own laws and principles.Foggy kub (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same source with another page 140, the country "Kyrgyz" is mentioned here:[9].Foggy kub (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - [10] "Mohammed Kyrgyz created an independent Kyrgyz state". Foggy kub (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - [11] "Under Mohammed Kyrgyz, the Kyrgyz tribes for the first time acted as an independent state."Foggy kub (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Kazman322, I can't wait for your answer to the arguments, and the book, as well as your friend Bogomolov.PL, “I can’t answer without emotions”, is this your envy?)☺️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriswift911 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[12] "Mohammed Kyrgyz ruled the Kyrgyz Khanate until the end of his life. Under him, the ethno-political structure of the Kyrgyz was finally formed ...". Foggy kub (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]