Jump to content

Talk:History of the Khitans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 210.203.61.15 (talk) at 14:31, 19 February 2008 (→‎Unclear: write in Khitan people or in Liao Dynasty ?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconChina Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sanskrit Cinistan

I heard Zhendan derives from Sanskrit Cinistan or something (China + land). Nanshu 07:18 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

That's true. Zhendan has nothing to do with Khitan. --Anon

The Daur (Dagur) believe themselves to be descendants of the Kitan, and in fact, there is at least one Kitan word in the language - [kaso:] 'iron'. In addition, the Kitan appear to have called their Liao empire *da(w)ur gurun "The Kitan empire", a word which is strangely similar to the word the Daurs use to refer to themselves - [daur]~[dawur]. For this and a number of other reasons, I personally believe the Daur are probably descendants of the Kitan. -Andrew

A recent DNA analysis has proven that the Daur are indeed descendants of the Kitan. -Anon.

Ben people

An ethnic group in Yunnan, the Ben people, are descendants of Khitan males intermarried with local females. They used the Khitan characters until early 18th century. Also in Hebei province, the most dominant last names are Liu, Wang and Zhang. The Khitans had only two last names, the Ye Lue and Xiao. Ye Lue is sinicized into Liu in the Jin Dynasty, and Wan Yan is sinicized into Wang in the Yuan and Ming Dynasty.

Karolus

Muslim?

Where is the evidence that they became Muslim and when? I have seen no such evidence. IN fact, they were Buddhist, NOT Muslim.

sorry, forgot to sign. Ludahai 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion on my part was part due to memory, and part due to the fact that Muslim chroniclers used the expression Khirkah خركاه to refer to vast numbers of central Asian nomads becoming Muslims. The term means "tent" or "yurt" or more accurately "household living in a yurt", averaging 5 people per khirkah. For example in 349 AH (200,000 Turkmen tents), and again in 435 AH (20,000?). This term is similar to Khita خطا and hence my confusion. Those converts where other Turkic people such Uyghur, Turkmen and others. In anycase, I corrected it. KB 05:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clashes with Muslims and sources

Again, they were not crushed by Muslims, but another non-Islamic group. Furthermore, there are no citations. Unilateral removal of these tags again without these issues being addressed will result in bring reported to an admin. Ludahai 00:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that after a period of continuous clashes and victories over Muslims, they were no longer a significant threat to Khwarezm or other Muslim lands after that defeat. Whether they continued to be so on other front is unknown to me. Feel free to reword accordingly, this is not a quarrel. As far as removal of the tag/flag, I felt this was appropriate because I corrected my own mistake and the matter is no longer an issue. If this is not the etiquette, point me to the proper one. I am not very active in Wikipedia. KB 05:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– What is the time period of these clashes with Muslims? Khitan established the Liao Dynasty at Northeast region of present day China (close to modern day Korea), and that region did not show any sign of contact with Muslims until much later time. Khitan were later driven west by Jin and established the Kingdom Of Karakhitan (according to Wiki article on Liao Dynasty), are you referring to this period instead?

Expansion

I am in the process of expanding this article. Many things by previous editors are unsourced and are not mentioned in the source I am drawing upon to expand the article. I have added a [citation needed] designation. Please cite or I will delete upon completion of the expansions - admittedly at least a month away as I don't expect to get to the end of Kara Khitai until then. ludahai 魯大海 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your sources fail to mention vital information, this is no basis for its summary deletion. I removed from the lead requests to cite that which constitutes general knowledge. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ALL information on this must be sourced or it is subject to deletion. All of my additions are sourced from the Mote source, which is the ONLY book listed as a source on this article except for the one Britannica reference in the text of the article. ludahai 魯大海 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing

Beijing was not THE capital of the Liao Dynasty, merely the Southern Capital. Shangjing, further north, was the capital of the Dynasty. ludahai 魯大海 10:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear: write in Khitan people or in Liao Dynasty ?

Extended content

Hello, I think that the articles :

Are currently uncleardly differencied. Especially :

_the article Khitan people have some military/politics facts
_the article Liao Dynasty have far more military/polotic facts
_we have no article for Khitan [military/politic] history before 907, despite they were quick actives

Also, I'm now lost, I feel that we are going to work two times on the sames issues. Should we not include the Liao dynasty into the Khitan article ? The following possibilities are possible :

  • Merge : Khitan article [Section 1 : Khitan (before 907) / section 2 : Empire Liao / etc...]
  • Add an introductive article : Make an new article History of the Khitans, with abstract of Khitan people (sociological article), an history before 907, and an abstract of the article Liao Dynasty (article about the Emperial area on which we have far more sources).

140.122.97.171 (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep split. The history of the Khitan and Liao Dynasty are two different subjects even though the Liao was ethnically Khitan, and in any case, the subject is too broad to be in a single article. I am mildly supportive of 140.122.97.171's proposal to further split the Khitan people article, but I do not believe it is absolutely necessary, since the Khitan people no longer exists as a separate distinguishable ethnicity. --Nlu (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: I finally simply renamed the Khitan people (no more existing), which add really few ethnological data, into History of the Khitans + improvement of the introduction (for more history than ethnology).

So, the current situation is :

Help is welcome to make the introduction more... history-centered. Yug (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Khitans&oldid=192556531"