Talk:Kalmyk people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Russia / Demographics & ethnography (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.
WikiProject Europe (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Asia / Mongols (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mongols (marked as Mid-importance).


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 03:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


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?[edit]

I have looked at the history of this article, and, particularly given the number of people who contributed to it prior to the second 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)

In the 17th century, the Oyirads splintered into two groups: the Kalmyks of the lower Volga and the Oyirads that remained in present-day China. The Oyirads in China do not regard themselves as Kalmyks. Therefore, the names Oyirad and Kalmyk are not interchangeable.-- 17:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

    • It is simply not true. Major population of Oirats of China are Kalmyks who returned to Dzungarian basin in 1772. All Oirats were referenced as Calmoucs or Kalmucks during 16-18 centuries by Western sources. So, Kalmyk is just different name of Oirats. Take a look at old Western maps published in 18 century e.g. this one - Calmouk 19:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • In the 18th century, the Kalmyk people existed along tribal lines, e.g. Torghut, Derbet, Buzava, etc. The "Kalmyk" national identity didn't develop until the end of the Russian Civil War when the Bolsheviks promoted the national "Kalmyk" identity by (1) creating the Kalmyk autonymous republic and (2) de-nomadizing the [Kalmyk] tribes of the Astrakhan region in the newly created republic. --Buzava 16:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        • That is not true. If you are not Kalmyk (Oirat) then you, probably, know nothing about our ancient name Dörvn Öörd which is known since 13 century Calmouk 22:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I am Kalmyk-American. I don't know of any Kalmyk that calls himself/herself Oirat, let alone Dörvn Öörd. My generation is the first not to go by our ancient tribal names.--Buzava 04:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Buzava is not tribal name. And there is no such thing as Kalmyk-American. Consistent way to us to call ourselfs is Kalmyks (Oirats) of USA. The same as Kalmyks (Oirats) of Russia, China or Mongolia Calmouk 21:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Western sources may have called Oirats "Kalmyks" but not Chinese sources. The Chinese historian Chí-yü Wu reported that "throughout the entire Ch'ing Dynasty, in spite of the close relations between the Court and the Oirats, the name "Kalmuk" never made its appearance in any of either the official or personal works of the period and was not known until very recently, when some of the Western sources began to be used by Chinese scholars."--Buzava 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Oirats always were known to Westerns as Kalmucks or Calmoucs. Who cares about Chinese sourses? Can you read Chinese? I doubt. Calmouk 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Chinese sources are just as important to Kalmyk and Oirat history as Western sources.--Buzava 04:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
            • All Oirats always were known to Westerns as Kalmucks or Calmoucs. Or you disagree? Calmouk 21:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Calmouk, you assert Kalmyks are not Western Mongols, in contradiction of many Western sources. Please explain your reasons for removing such references from this article and provide support of your position.--Buzava 21:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I am Kalmyk, Oirat. Dorvuud, particularly. My parents were Kalmyks (Oirats). My ancestors were Kalmyks (Oirats). Mongols were not our ancestors. Why we should be Western Mongols? Calmouk 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Your ethnicity doesn't qualify you to draft this article. And your use of Western sources is very selective, probably to suit your own agenda.--Buzava 04:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Then who is qualified? Who's never seen even one Oirat person? Who thinks that Busava is a Kalmyk tribe? Who does not see any difference between Mongol and Oirat? Calmouk 21:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • A prominent Mongolist, the late Nicholas Poppe, identified Kalmyk as belonging to the Mongolian language family. I don't know of any other scholar who'd suggest otherwise. Yet you chose to delete the reference. Please explain your reasons for the change. --Buzava 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
        • First, Kalmyk language belongs to Altay language family. There is no such thing as Mongolian language family. Second, English language belongs to German group. Why don't you call Americans as Transatlantic Germans? Calmouk 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
          • You make no sense whatsoever.--Buzava 04:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I simply show absurdity of your "logic" when you call Oirats as Western Mongols Calmouk 21:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I request rollback changes Calmouk 19:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I oppose any rollback.--Buzava 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I request rollback changes. Kalmyks and Oirats are the same people. In fact in 17th century Oirats were union of four trubes such as Torghut, Derbet, Hoshut and Tsoros. However, the name Kalmyk is given to Oirats by turk tribes. In support of my posititon I present the 18th century map where ALL OIRATS are named as KALMYKS. I also would like to point out that kalmyk identity has not been promoted by communists as was proposed by Buzava. A long before revolution Kalmyks were calling themselves as "Ulan Zalata Halmgud" or " Kalmyks with red tassel". I can assure Buzava that that red tassel has nothing to do with red banner of communists. Batrun 11:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have only discovered this dialogue today but as a historian who speciallizes in Oirat and Kalmyk history I will take the position that the two groups are not the same but do overlap in some important respects. The Oirat people who left the Dzungar basin in the early and mid 17th century were primarily of the Torghut and Dorbut tribes. Other Oirat tribes remained behind and the Khoshut migrated south to the Kokonor region (Amdo in Tibetan). Those who remained in Dzungaria became known as the Dzungar Mongols and most were eventually destroyed by the Manchu Dynasty. It would be very unusual to see any of those early groups who remined in Dzungaria or migrated south to Kokonor refered to as Kalmyks. It was after the Torghuts and Dorbots settled on the Volga steppes that they became known as Kalmyks. A few Russian history sources do refer to the Oirats of Dzungaria as Black Kalmyks, but remember, these are the same people who called all Mongols Tatars. The Turghuts who migrated back to the Dzungar basin in 1771/2 occupied the areas once populated by the Dzungars. This population of Torghuts who still live in modern day Xinjiang province of China are still often known as Kalmyks by some because they came from the population that lived on the Volga steppes from about 1630 to 1771.

I hope this is helpful. It leaves out a lot of details. 20:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 1[edit]

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 to move from Oyirad to Kalmyk people

OyiradKalmyks – This article is mostly about Kalmyks. Oirat (English form) can also refer to the Turkic (non-Mongol) Altays and the Altai Republic. Oirat should be a disamb page explaining this and providing info on the Oirats as a whole and specifically in northern Asia. LuiKhuntek 04:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. --Khoikhoi 05:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OpposeCalmouk 12:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- LuiKhuntek 22:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Batrun 12:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OpposeWincent 13:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Move should have been made to Kalmyks, not Kalmyk people.

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)
Mh. All of those are now back at "... people", though. —Nightstallion (?) 08:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)


Add any additional comments

Kalmyk, Calmouk, Oyirad - just different names historically describing the same people. Kalmyk people cannot be divided on Kalmyk and Oyirad. It is very artificial and politically has only anti-Kalmyk sense.

This methodology was introduced by Soviet era "historians" when Kalmyk people were deported to Siberia and Kalmyk Authonomy was destroyed. Seems like in that time when Kalmyks were declared by Communists Party and Government as "enemies of the people's state", "historians" wanted to save object of their research, so they "invented" separate Oyirad nation to distinguish them from "bad" Kalmyks. Oyirads "evolved" from the different name into different nation. It called Soviet Magic!

Another source of such "separation" is politics of modern Mongolia. Building new nation on Khalha basis requires a lot of sacrificing. Oyirad people were sacrificed first. They are object of politics of assimilation. Oyirad language has no official status in this country, has no written system and used by Oyirads only as "home" language. History of Oyirads was declared as a part of history of Mongols. As a next logical step, Oyirads were declared "Oyirad-Mongols" despite that even historical Mongolian sources always were distinguishing "Four Oyirads" from "Forty Mongols". Calmouk 13:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 09:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move rollback request[edit]

I request rollback that move/ Take a look at this 18th century map from the Library of Congress - It is clearly demonstrating that Calmoucs is DIFFERENT name of Oirats! Calmouk 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So what? Write an article about Calmoucs then, or change this article to be about Calmoucs and put the information about Oirats in another article... Be WP:BOLD! —Nightstallion (?) 06:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Calmoucs are the same people as the Kalmyks. What Calmouk is trying to say is that the Oirats are the same as the Kalmyks, something that User:LuiKhuntek apparently disagrees on. --Khoikhoi 07:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
French language publications will often use Calmouk/Calmouc for reasons of tradition and convention. The same goes for Cach(e)mir(e) and Pach(e)toune. See more such examples at Monde diplomatique's maps section. //Big Adamsky 11:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
While we're at it, let's rollback Australia, New Zealand and Canada into Great Britian. It can't be done, because these countries have evolved into separate entities. The same can be said of the Kalmyks of Russia and the Oirats of China/Mongolia. The former has been influenced by the Russians and the latter has been under Chinese hegemony. Two distinct histories - one Asian, the other European. Each deserve there own article. -- 22:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Are Kurds of Turkey DIFFERENT then Kurds of Iraq or Iran? Kurds are Kurds. Does not matter in what country they are living. The same about Oirats of Russia (Kalmyks), Oirats of China and Oirats of Mongolia. Calmouk 22:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The Kurds do not suffer from spatial separation like the Kalmyks and their Oirat cousins in China and Mongolia. The historic territorial integrity of Kurdish homeland remains intact.--Buzava 03:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Kurdish land is divided between 3 countries. And Kurds cannot easily cross borders. They are separated. What historic territorial integrity of Kurdish homeland you are talking about? Spatial separation is very subjective matter. Before Russian Revolution Kalmyks of Russia had no problem to travel to Tibet or China. And, Oirats in China and Mongolia are not our "cousins". They are our brothers and sisters. Calmouk 21:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with The Kalmyks of Kalmykia (and the USA) identify themselves as Kalmyks and not Oirats. I'm not sure about the Oirats of China and Mongolia but I've seen no evidence they call themselves Kalmyks. Kalmyks may have once been Oirats just as Australians were once British but centuries of different history in different continents mandate two articles as is currently the case: Kalmyks and Oirats.

There is the additional complication that the Altay (Turkic) people were also formerly called Oirats and the Altai Republic was the Oirat AO. With this case, Oirat and Kalmyk should remain separate articles.

LuiKhuntek 09:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hold on! Are Jewish people of Israel DIFFERENT then Jewish people of Jewish Autonomous Oblast of Russia? Should you create separate articles for them? Calmouk 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes.--Buzava 03:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to God, Jewish people don't think so Calmouk 21:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
There has been no evidence presented here that Kalmyks currently call themselves or consider themselves Oirats or that Asiatic Oirats call themselves or consider themselves Kalmyks. The official website of Kalmykia simply says: "The Kalmyks ... are the descendants of Oyrats." [1]
The official website of Kalmykia says: "The Kalmyks ... are the descendants of Oyrats." because current President of Kalmykia is from Buzava ;) Buzava were Kalmyks who betrayed Dörvn Öörd and joined Russian Cossaks. During Russian Civil War 1918-1920 their Russian neighbors killed most of Buzavas mainly because of racial hate. Buzavas abandoned their Cossack villages and fleed to Kalmyk steppes or left Russia. Now I see they want to become Western Mongols. They have already tried to become Russians. They lost our Dörvn Öörd identity. Calmouk 21:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Why those dirty rats! LuiKhuntek 04:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Australians speak English and speak English; historical maps of Australia call the country New Holland but Australians are neither English nor "New Hollanders."
LuiKhuntek 10:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Interstingly why? According Buzava logic Australians should be called as Overseas Englishmen or Antipode Englishmen or South Pole Elfs Calmouk 21:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC) refers to Kalmyk and Oirat as alternative names - Calmouk 22:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Calmouk, you are as intellectually dishonest as the Soviet propagandist you criticize. --Buzava 03:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Why? Because you don't like opinion of Calmouk 21:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like to say that Kalmyks in China do call themselves as "Halmgud" i.e. Kalmyks. I agree with Calmouk that it is anti-kalmyk to separate Kalmyks and Oirats into different nations it is the same as if you separate medieval and modern English into different nations. Batrun 12:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's anti-Kalmyk to suggest that the Kalmyks are not worthy of their own article. Their accomplishments and suffering are not worth noting. Their distinct historical, linguistic and cultural development are insignificant. And so forth...--Buzava 15:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it you who said that the Kalmyk nation is a creation of Communist propaganda? However it is obvious that Kalmyks in Russia, in China and in Mongolia are the parts of the same nation which, due to historical perturbations, was dispersed around the world. However, your position that Kalmyks are the bunch of "Western Mongolian" tribes and the Torgud people living in China are not Kalmyks contradicts the History: The Torguds in China came back to Dzhungaria from Volga river in 1771. On the basis of your position I can say that you are not Kalmyk you are American Kalmyk - a new truly "Western Mongolian" nation formed in USA. Batrun 17:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Calmouk, Batrun -

Per WIKIPEDIA policy, articles are requited to meet three standards:

  1. Articles must be written in a neutral point of view;
  2. Facts, viewpoints, theories and claims in articles must only be included if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources; and
  3. 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)

Here's another source favoring my position:

"The Kalmyk are a Mongolian speaking nation. Their origin dates back centuries, from the first centuries A. D. when the modern Kalmyk ancestors- the Oirate (the Western Mongolian) appeared first on historical field playing an appreciable role in the history of peoples of the Central Asia so far as in the second millennium."--Buzava 03:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a partial statement from the Embassy of the Republic of Kalmykia at the President of the Russian Federation:

"The Kalmyk (and their Oyrat ancestors) made an entrance to the historic arena as an independent nation in the first half of the 15th century after Mongolia had split in two parts (Eastern and Western). Before this they used to be a part of the Mongol state created by Chenghis-khan in the 13th century.

In the second half of the 16th century a considerable part of the Oyrat, who were travelling mostly in the steppes of Djungharia, left for Russia where they appeared at the end of the century. That is where the new chronicle of the Kalmyk - a Mongol-speaking nation in the European part of Russia starts."--Buzava 03:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a partial statement from the Kalmykia government:

"The Kalmyks (own name, the Khalmag) are the descendants of Oyrats originating from West Mongolia (Jungaria). These were nomadic tribes kindred to Mongols in material culture, language and religion. In the 13th century Oyrats made a part of the Chinghis Khan's state. After the collapse of the Mongolian Empire Oyrat rulers joined the fight for domination against the East Mongolian khans. By the middle of 14th century Esen Khan managed to unite all the original Mongolian lands under his power. He also defeated the war expedition of Min China and captured the emperor. It resulted in a favorable peace treaty. However, Esen's followers did not succeed in keeping the power in Mongolia."--Buzava 03:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A Kalmyk-American khurul recognizes our Mongolian origins:

--Buzava 03:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A Serbian historian set up a web page about the Kalmyk Buddhist Temple in Belgrade, Serbia. The Introduction section mentions are relationship to Buriats and Mongols:

--Buzava 03:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A second Kalmyk-American khurul recognizes our Mongolian origins:

--Buzava 03:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Citing ignorants does not prove anything. This is a map from the Library of Congress which was created in the beginning of 18th century - 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)
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)
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)
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)

IMHO, the citations provided by Buzava can not be qualified as scientific. Unfortunately there is not a lot of scientific references in English. Most of research I know is in Russian. Anyway there you go: Citation from "The Kalmyk heroic epic “Djangar” is the cultural heritage of the Mongol-speaking nations and, first of all, the Oyrat group: the Kalmyks (Russia), the West Mongols (Mongolia) and the Xinjiang Oyrats (China)." Is it not a clear indication that all those people are in fact the same nation? And again relation to Mongol language does not mean that Oirat(Kalmyk) nation is the same as Mongol nation! The same as Catalan language which is of Roman origin and could be understood by Spanish but nevertheless it is a different language. Only Oirats (Kalmyks) whenever they are Russia (Kalmykia and Altai Rebuplics), China or Mongolia have "Djangar" epic poem - this is indication of one nation split in many parts many years ago. In fact the language of Oirat(Kalmyk)people is also the same whenever they are. The fact that some Oirats speak language of Turkoman origin (Altai Rebuplic) is evidence that Oirat Union also included some non-Mongolian elements. I would like to point out again that the difference between Kalmyk and Oirats is in fact the same as between Medieval and Modern English people. Batrun 13:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The real issue here is that native Russian speakers, like Calmouk and Batrun, have a limited understanding of the English language. As a result, they fail to comprehend the purpose of setting up a separate article for Kalmyks. No one is denying that, at one point in time, the name "Kalmyk" was equivalent to the name "Oirat." Or that the Kalmyks descend from the Oirats. But there were 250 years of spatial separation and differing histories -one Russian and the other Chinese. Even if the Kalmyks retained their former name, both deserve a separate arrticle. --Buzava 17:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Kalmyks are not Oirat descents because Kalmyks are Oirats. It is the same as Jews of Russia are not Askenasi descents but they are Askenasi. The real issue here is that former Kalmyk people like Buzava have lost their national identity. They fail to comprehend the purpose of separation Kalmyks from Oirats which was promoted by Russia, China and Mongolia. Despite their tremendous brainwashing efforts, we still consider ouselfs as a nation divided on three major parts - Oirats (Kalmyks) of Russia, Oirats of China and Oirats of Mongolia. We do not desire separate articles in any encyclopedia because separation works against revival of our Oirat(Kalmyk) nation. Calmouk 04:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
Buzava, please don't make any personal attacks. Try to be respectful. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 05:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
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)

"As a consequence of their complex political history, the present day Oirats are dispersed over various regions, including not only Jungharia (Xinjiang province) but also Manchuria, Western Mongolia, Qinghai province (China) and Russia. Present day Oirats comprise four main tribes: Torghut, Dorbet, Pelet, and Khoshut." from here Batrun 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"The name Kalmyk (or Kalmuck) appears to have been given to the Oirats by Turkic speakers, and may be a corruption of "kalpak" or fur hat (i.e., the Kalmyks did not wear turbans, a mark of Islam). Other tribes unrelated to the Kalmyks but also non-Muslims were called White Kalmyks (the Telenguts) or Black Kalmyks (Nogai). See Howorth, The History, Part I, pp. 492-98. Prior to the seventeenth century, the Kalmyks were considered as subjects by the Chinese. In the early seventeenth century, a large force of Kalmyks moved west into the upper Irtysh and Tobol basins, some crossing Urals and settling on the Don and Volga. In the scholarly literature, "Kalmyk" has come to be used only for those Oirats who lived west of the Urals."

"Meanwhile, the Kalmyks (also called Oirats), who were more populous than the Kirgiz and roamed from Astrakhan to China, presented an even more formidable challenge, riding into battle with a mobility reminiscent of the thirteenth-century Mongols."

Citations from article written by Stephen Kotkin(Princeton University):

Genetic Relationship Between Kalmyks and Mongols[edit]

Calmouk, Batrun, Wincent -'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)

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)

Buzava we do not deny this fact. You seem to be a native speaker but you still could not catch this? Batrun 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Batrun, the record speaks for itself. --Buzava 12:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Buzava I'm sure genetic results will prove relation between English and Germans. And I'm also sure you will think they are the same nation. Batrun 13:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Batrun, please explain to me why you oppose a separate article about Kalmyks. --Buzava 16:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Because Kalmyks are Oirats or Oirats are Kalmyks Batrun 16:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


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)

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)

Durova, Can you explain to me why there was a need to create a separate article re: German Americans when an article already exists under "German People" and would you support a separate article for, let's say, German-Russians or even German-Brazilians? I believe your answer would be considered the source of the friction here. --Buzava 12:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Oirat, Kalmyk, Kalmuck, Calmouc - different names of the same people[edit]

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 -> 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)

Humboldt, whose high authority cannot be questioned, by an elaborate discussion ("Vues des Cordilleras," p. 148 et. seq., ed. 1870), has shown the relative likeness of the Nahua calendar to that of Asia. He cites the fact that the Chinese, Japanese, Calmucks, Mongols, Mantchou, and other hordes of Tartars have cycles of sixty years' duration, divided into five brief periods of twelve years each. The method of citing a date by means of signs and numbers is quite similar with Asiatics and Mexicans. He further shows satisfactorily that the majority of the names of the twenty days employed by the Aztecs are those of a zodiac used since the most remote antiquity among the peoples of Eastern Asia.

--Calmouk 02:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

—There are many nations in Asia whose governments might be compared to those of the feudal empires of the middle ages; such, for example, are the Afghans, the Beloochees, the Mongols, the Calmucks, the Mantchoos, many Turkish peoples, and several nations of the Caucasus; but especially Japan, whose daïmios are true feudatories of the emperor, or were, at least, before the reforms effected about 1870.Editor: Lalor, John J. (?-1899) Title: Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States by the Best American and European Writers Published: New York: Maynard, Merrill, and Co., 1899. First published: 1881

Further supporting evidences from Elena Indjieva who is a PhD student in the Department of Linguistics at Hawaii University Batrun 16:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC):

Regarding the ethnonym /Oirat/.

According to Birtalan: "…the ethnonym Oirat (Oyirad, Written Mongol vUjirat, Spoken Oirat Öörd) covers several groups of Western Mongols, originally probably belonging to the tribal confederation of the Hoi-yin Irgen "Forest People", who until the thirteenth century lived south and southwest of Lake Baikal. After Chinggis Khan’s eldest son Jochi attacked the "Forest People" (in 1206-7), the ancient Oirat moved to the steppes of the Altai region and adopted a fully nomadic way of life. In the fifteenth century their descendants emerged as a growing political power known as the Oirat Confederation. Under the rule of Toghon (c.1416-40) and his son Esen (1440-55) the Oirat expanded their territory from the Altai to thr ILi (Yili) valley, claiming themselves to be the legitimate heirs of Chinggis Khan's empire. The Oirat reached their height of power under the rule of Ghaldan Boshokhtu (1670-97) and his successors Tsewangrabdan (1697-1727) and Ghaldantseren (1727-45), when the so-called Junghar (Jaguv Qhar "Left Hand") Khanate was established in the Ili region, subsequently known as Jungaria (Dzungaria). Like the Eastern and Southern Mongols, the Oirat were ultimately subjugated by the Manchu, whose empire expanded to Jungaria in the middle of the eighteenth century. As a consequence of their complex political history, the Oirat are today dispersed over various regions, including not only Jungaria and Western Mongolia, but also Manchchurai and the Kukunor region in Amdo (Quinghai). The Kalmuck in the Volga region also represent an Oirat diaspora group, though they have long functioned as a separate entity both politically and linguistically.The ethnonym Oirat is often used in the combination Dörben Oirat (Tuirbav vUjirat), i.e. the "Four Oirat", a somewhat vague concept which seems to have covered a different set of tribes at different times. Majority tribes comprised by the Four Oirat" include the Torghut, Dörbet, Oelet, and Khoshut, but smaller tribes such as the Khoit were also involved. In parallel with their common political history, all these tribes came to be comprised by a distinct and relatively uniform type of speech, which may be referred to as the Oirat language. As a manifestation of this linguistic uniformity, the Oirat monk Zaya Pandita Oqtorghoin Dalai (5599-1662) created in 1648 on the basis of the Mongol alphabet the so-called "Clear Script" (todo bicig or todorxoi yzyg ), upon which a new supradialectal written language, Written Oirat, was built. Linguistically, Written Oirat may be viewed as a more or less accurate normalization of the speech of the Western Mongols as it was in the mid-seventeenth century.” (Birtalan, 2005:210)

Besides the historical evidence: During my visit to the Xinjiang region (China), I witnessed that some Xinjiang Oirats that were born and raised in Xinjiang region identify themselves as Xal'myg "Kalmyks". In general, Xinjiang Oirats in China regard Oirats and Kalmyks to be the same ethnic group.

Reference: Birtalan, Agnes. Chapter 10, The Mongolic Languages, ed. by Juha Janhunen, Routledge Language Family Series, 2003. p.210

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)
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)

Regarding the ethnonym /Mongol/.

"Originally, Mongol was the name of a limited social unit, or a tribe, but since this happened to be the unit from which Chinggis Khan descended, the term was ultimately extended to comprise the entire population which spoke, or came to speak, the same language. With the historical diversification of this language, the entire family of related languages and dialects collectively termed Mongolic arose. Some populations today still keep the common ethnomym, or its variants,a nd continue to be refered to by names such as Mongol (Mongolian), Mongghul, Mangguer, or Moghol." (Janhunen, 2005: xvi) Note that linguistically they are all distinct languages. Most of the Mongolic populations, however, Janhunen continues bear different ethnonyms mainly based on other ancient ethnic or tribal names (e.g. Oirat, Dagur, Bonan, Santa, etc.). "Irrespective of their ethnonym, all speakers of the Modern Mongolic languages may be regarded as more or less direct descendants of the historical Mongols. It has to be emphasized, however, that it is a question of descent only, while biologically and culturally the modern Mongols have absorbed a multitudes of other influences." (Janhunen, 2005: xvi)

Reference: Janhunen, Juha, Preface and Acknowledgements, The Mongolic Languages, ed. by Juha Janhunen, Routledge Language Family Series, 2003. p.xvi

In addition: It is generally believed that the Mongolia before Mongolians proper was inhabited by various nations since the ancient times. Based on the investigations of historical linguists, there are pieces of evidence for at least two major linguistic groups (Khitan and Xianbi) that seem to represent the Para-Mongolic branch of the Pre-Proto-Mongolic period of the Mongolic languages. In other words, it seems that there used to be at least two major "Mongolic" civilizations that preceded the history of Mongolians proper which is generally believed to begin from the rise of the Great Mongol Empire, the era of Chinggis Khan (13th century). According to the following website:, the earliest known governmental entity in what is nowadays Mongolia is the Xiongnu (Xianbi), or Hun state. Historians still argue whether the Huns were a proto-Mongolian tribe, or a proto-Turkic ethnic group. Nevertheless, the Huns formed a highly elaborate state in Central Asia led by a monarch called "shanyu". Here is the chronological list of events of the "pre-Chinggis Khan" Mongolian history following by the list of event of the "Chinggis Khan" Mongolian history) proposed in the above mentioned website.


500 000 BC Human presence in Mongolia

4000 BC to 2000 BC Bronze age

2000 av. JC Developpement of herding in Mongolia

700 à 500 av. JC Transition to the beginning of the iron age

400 av. JC Construction of the Great Fall of China, who was used as a frontier between China and Hunnu Hunnu and next states

209 BC Modun Shanyui built first state, which named Hunnu

200 BC Xionghu (Hunnu) Mongolian Empire reaches the Yellow river

AD 1-100 Xionghu expelled from China

156 AD Xianbei (Sumbe) defeat Hunnu state and became most powerful in Central Asia

300 AD Toba

317 Xianbei conquer northern China

386 to 533 Period of Northern Wei Dynasty, established by the Toba in northern China mid-8th century Possible early Mongol links with Tibetan Buddhism

840 Kyrghiz defeat ruling Uighurs

916 to 1125 Beginning of Kitan period , established over eastern Mongolia, Manchuria, and northern China

1122 The ruling Kitan defeated by Chineese

Great Mongol Empire

1162 The child Temujin, later to become Chinggis Khan, is born

1189 Temujin takes the title of Chinggis Khan(Universal King)

1189 to 1205 Chinggis Khan unites Mongols

1206 Chinggis Khan proclaims himself ruler Of the Mongol Empire

1211 Chinggis Khan launches attacks to China

1215 Khanbalik (Beijing) falls to the Mongols

1227 Chinggis Khan dies

1129 Ogedei Khan, Chinggis’s third and favourite son, proclaimed the second khan

1231 Korea invaded

1235 Karakorum built by Ogedei Khan

Marco Polo arrives in Karakorum

1236 to 1240 Campaigns against Russia by Bat Khan, little son of Chinggis Khan, with his Golden Horde

1237 Start of campaigns to Russia and Europe (battke of the river Kalka) that was halted at Vienna with death of Ogedei

1240 to 1480 Suzerainty over Russia established by Golden Horde Conquest of Song China

1241 Dead of Ogedei

1241 to 1242 Poland and Hungarn invaded

1246 Guyuk, son of Ogedei, becomes Khan, he dies that year

1251 Mongke (Monkh) from another wing of the family becomes Khan

1251 Iran invaded

1259 Dead of Mongke, his brother Kublai becomes Khan

1260 Mongols defeated by Egyptian Mamluks

1261 Khubilai becomes great khan

1264 Capital moved from Karakorum to Khanbalik (Beijing)

1274 and 1281 Unsuccessful attempts at invasion of Japan

1275 Marco Polo arrives in China

1276 Hangzhou, capital of Song China falls to the Mongols

1279 Kublai Khan, Chinggis Khan’s grandson, completes the conquest of China

1294 Kublai Khan dies

1299 Mongol invasion of Syria

1368 Mongols driven out of China ,Yuan Dynasty destroyed

Fall Mongol Empire and subjugation by Manchu

1400-1454 Civil war in Mongolia

1578 Altan Khan converts to Buddhism and gives the title Dalai Lama to Sonam Gyatso

1586 Erdene Zuu, Mongolia’s first monastery, is started

1641 Zanabazar proclaimed leader of Buddhists in Mongolia


This quote summarizes my position:

"The Kalmuck in the Volga region also represent an Oirat diaspora group, though they have long functioned as a separate entity both politically and linguistically." --Buzava 23:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether you realize it or not, the person you cite supports my position. --Buzava 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so my dear Buzava. Batrun 11:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Britannica account[edit]

Please stop pointless arguing about "Russians exterminating Kalmyks out of racial hate", as Wikipedia is neither a chat room nor a Kalmyk propaganda machine. Please remember that it is encyclopaedia. When in doubt as to the facts, turn to the latest addition of Encyclopaedia Britannica: it contains a concise summary of the latest Western research. I here provide an excerpt from the Britannica article on Kalmyk, for processing in the text of our article:

KALMYK, also spelled KALMUCK, Mongol people residing chiefly in Kalmykia republic, in southwestern Russia. Their language belongs to the Oyrat (Oirat), or western, branch of the Mongolian language group.

    • I repeat, to call Kalmyk (Oirat) as Mongol is the same as to call English as Western German. Just apply your reasoning -English language belongs to German language group and English people have German ancestors - Saxonians. In oppose, Oirat people never had Mongols among their ancestors. Oirats have always been separate entity. Calmouk 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Oyrat dialects are also spoken in western Mongolia, Sinkiang, and neighbouring provinces of China.

    • Yea, yea, Oyrat dialects. Is English just dialect of German? Calmouk 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The home of the Kalmyk lies west of the Volga River in its lower courses, in an arc along the northwestern shore of the Caspian Sea. A small number of Kalmyk of the Buzawa tribe live along the Don River.

    • I see Britannica has not been updated for at least 90 years. Because Buzava used to live along the Don River. Before Russian Revolution of 1917. During Russian Civil War almost all of them were killed. By Russians. And it is not Kalmyk propaganda, it is well known fact Calmouk 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Another small group, called the Sart Kalmyk, live in Kyrgyzstan near the Chinese border. A few emigrated after World War II to the United States.

The western Mongols were enemies of the eastern Mongols at the time of their imperial apogee in the 13th century AD. During the following centuries they maintained a separate existence under a confederation known as the Dorben Oyrat ("Four Allies," from which the name Oyrat is derived);

    • Almost everything is correct except that Dörvn Öörd - Allied Four - never been named Mongols till 19th century. And those "Eastern Mongols" never (even now) called themselfs as "Eastern Mongols" but simply "Mongols". Also name Oirat is result of Russian mistranscription - Russian alphabet cannot represent vowel Ö. Calmouk 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

at times they were allies, at times enemies, of the eastern Mongols.

Part of the western Mongols remained in their homeland, northern Sinkiang, or Dzungaria, and western Mongolia. Part of the Oyrat confederation, including all or part of the Torgut, Khoshut, Dorbet (or Derbet), and other groups, moved across southern Siberia to the southern Urals at the beginning of the 17th century.

    • "Cosmography" of Sebastian Munster witnesses that move started a century earlier Calmouk 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

From there they moved to the lower Volga, and for a century and a half, until 1771, they roamed both to the east and west of this region.

    • Even "a century and a half" is a big chunk of time. For example, Soviet Union existed just 70 years. Calmouk 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

During the course of the 18th century, they were absorbed by the Russian Empire, which was then expanding to the south and east.

    • I would say, at least "a century and a half" Kalmyks (Oirats) were major deterrent factor to hold in expansion of Russian Empire on South Calmouk 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In 1771, those of the left bank, to the east of the Volga, returned to China. The right-bank Kalmyk, comprising the contemporary Torgut, Dorbet, and Buzawa, remained in Russia.

    • Among modern Oirats (Kalmyks) of Russia you can find all Four Allies - Torgut, Dorbet, Khoshut and Olut.

And here is their entry on Oirat:

OYRAT, also spelled OIRAT, any of the peoples speaking western dialects of the Mongol language group. In the 13th century the western Mongols were enemies of the eastern Mongols of Genghis Khan's empire. During the following centuries the western Mongols maintained a separate existence under a confederation known as the Dцrben Oyrat (Four Allies, from which the name Oyrat is derived); at times they were allies, at times enemies, of the eastern Mongols in the Genghis Khan line. Part of the western Mongols remained in their homeland, northern Sinkiang, or Dzungaria, and western Mongolia. Another part of the Oyrat confederation, including all or some of the Torgut, Khoshut, Dorbet (or Derbet), and other groups, moved across southern Siberia to the southern Urals at the beginning of the 17th century. From there they moved to the lower Volga; and for a century and a half, until 1771, they lived as nomads both to the east and to the west of the lower Volga.

    • Volga was not the only Kalmyks' domain. In fact, in 16-18 centuries Kalmyks were presented from Tibet till Don River.Calmouk 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

During the course of the 18th century they were absorbed by the Russian Empire, which was then expanding to the south and east. In 1771 those on the left bank, to the east of the Volga, returned to China. The right-bank Kalmyk (q.v.), comprising the contemporary Torgut, Dorbet, and Buzawa, remained in Russia. Considerable numbers of Oyrat still live in the Sinkiang and Tsinghai regions of northwest China, where an estimated 100,000 speak Oyrat dialects; another 50,000 speakers live in the western portions of the Mongolian People's Republic, where they have been dominated by the numerically preponderant Khalkha.

From the article MONGOLIA:

Meanwhile, the Oyrat, under their leading tribe, the Dzungar, made a belated effort to unite all the Mongols in rivalry with the Manchu. The Oyrat were strengthened by their control of a number of the Sinkiang oases but weakened by rivalries among their chiefs, by the diversion of much of their strength to adventures in Tibet, and by the reluctance of the Khalkha princes to accept the overlordship of princes not descended from Genghis Khan. Led by such warriors as Galdan (Dga'-ldan), the Oyrat made sweeping campaigns far to the east in Mongolia but were never quite able to consolidate their gains. In trying to make the Oyrat a recognizably distinct nation, the great religious leader, the Jaya Pandita, revised the Mongol alphabet, making it phonetically more accurate, and originated an independent literary tradition.

Unwilling to accept submission to the Oyrat as the price of unification, the Khalkha princes rallied more and more to the Manchu, who guaranteed their aristocratic privileges and titles in a great convention at Dolon Nor (To-lun), in Inner Mongolia, in 1691. With the added resources of Khalkha, the Manchu were then able to mount a long series of military campaigns in which they annihilated the Oyrat power with tremendous slaughter on the scale of genocide.

This conquest, however, was not completed until 1759, and it was complicated by many events, particularly a major revolt against Manchu rule in western Khalkha in the 1750s led by a noble named Chingunjav. Chingunjav was a coconspirator with an Oyrat leader named Amursana, who in turn had first submitted to the Manchu and then rebelled against them. But this was the last period of general warfare involving the Mongols, and it ended with a considerable redistribution of the tribes. Several Khalkha groups that had fled from the Oyrat into Inner Mongolia never returned; a few Chahars from Inner Mongolia were settled in Sinkiang as garrisons; numbers of the Oyrat group were included in the western part of Khalkha geographically but not within the tribal organization; some ended their migrations in Ala Shan, at the western end of Inner Mongolia, but not within the Inner Mongolian organization; and some ended theirs far away in the Kokonor-Tsaidam region of Tibet. The most distant Oyrat wanderers (mostly Torgut and Dцrbed) migrated in the early 17th century from the Altai to the Volga, where they took service under the tsars and took part in the Russian conquest of the Caucasus. In 1771 about 70,000 families migrated all the way back to Sinkiang, where they were accepted under Manchu rule and allotted pastures for grazing. The descendants of those who remained on the Volga were known as the Kalmyk (Kalmuck).

From the article MONGOL:

Present-day Mongol peoples include the Khalkha (q.v.), who constitute almost four-fifths of the population of independent Mongolia; the descendants of the Oyrat, or western Mongols, who include the Dorbet (or Derbet), Olot, Torgut, and Buzawa (see Kalmyk; Oyrat) and live in southwestern Russia, western China, and independent Mongolia; the Chahars, Urat, Karchin, and Ordos Mongols of the Inner Mongolian region of China; the Bargut and Dhagor Mongols of Manchuria; the Monguors of the Chinese province of Kansu; and the Buryat of Russia, who have their own republic on either side of Lake Baikal north of independent Mongolia. --Ghirla | talk 16:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Calmouk is claiming that Russians exterminated the Buzava - Don Kalmyk Cossacks - out of racial hate. Of course, Calmouk's claim is incorrect.--Buzava 01:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Then what was a reason for such genocide level extermination of Buzavas? Strong anti-Bolshevik believes of Buzava? Most prominent anti-Bolshevik among Kalmyks was Prince Tundutov. He was Dorvuud and Dorvuuds were not exterminated as Buzavas despite they fighted against Bolsheviks even furiously then Buzavas. And there are no more Bolsheviks in Russia - what prevents Buzavas to return to their Cossak villages?
You answered your own question. --Buzava 01:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oyrat invasion of Kazakhstan[edit]

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)


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)

Why Am I The Only Person Editing Pursuant To NPOV?[edit]

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)

Here we go again. Nearly everything I've written in the Location, Religion, and Language sections has been edited out, even though the material was drafted pursuant to NPOV. Even if those sections were restored, this article still remains incomplete. At this time, I'm not inclined to waste my time completing the article. --Buzava 05:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"the move west"?[edit]

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)

File:Map calmoucs.gif

I removed section "the move west" since it has no sense Calmouk 17:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no historical evidence that Oirats have called themselves as Mongols[edit]

If somebody has it please bring it for further discussion here Calmouk 04:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You're creating an issue where none exists. There's no mention of the issue in the article.--Buzava 15:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The name Kalmyk[edit]

Name "Kalmucks" exists in "Cosmography" of Sebastian Munster (1488-1552), which was published in 1544. According to officially accepted history, Kalmyks started to convert to Buddhism surely AFTER 1544. This fact left no place for versions about Oirats named Kalmyks because they did not want to convert from Buddhism to Islam.

Dialects of Kalmyk[edit]

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)

Your personal opinion doesn't count. Write a counter argument with references. --Buzava 15:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you write PRO argument with references? Calmouk 17:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence under the Location section is an editorial interjection regarding the name etymology and should be removed from the article page; it belongs on the Talk area. The rest of the paragraph should have the incorrect spelling and grammar corrected.- StevoDog21 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


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)

Buzava this is not a place for personal messages. Please, visit Batrun 17:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
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)

Calmouk/Batrun, do you have an image of any of the following:

  • Galdan
  • Prince Amursana
  • Kho Orlok
  • Ayuka Khan
  • Ubashi Khan
  • Kalmyk horse - How many different types existed?

Also, can either one of you write a section dealing with Kalmyk Literature and Folklore? --Buzava 07:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Obsolete information[edit]

"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.

Batrun 13:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Batrun, you know nothing about religion.--Buzava 16:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw, why do you insist on deleting my reference to Nicolas Poppe?--Buzava 16:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, my information re: Derbet dialect and historic location is accurate. The info is for any person interested in knowing where the Kalmyk tribes once lived.--Buzava 16:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Buzava, you should learn geography of Russia a little bit. Kalmykia is not part of Astrakhan or Stavropol provinces since 1920. Calmouk 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Calmouk, you claim to be Derbet. It's a shame you don't know where your great-grandparents lived. I know my grandparents' aimaks, including the names of the aimaks' most prominent religious leader. We're taught that at a young age.--Buzava 03:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Buzava, you claim that Buzava is a tribe of Kalmyks. Please, do not lose your NPOV here :) Calmouk 21:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your just jealous because I no more about the Kalmyk people than you do. What have you really contributed here other than two maps? You mispelled Zaya Pandita's name. You can't even spell the Kalmyk name correctly, choosing instead either Calmouk or Calmouc. This isn't French Wikipedia.--Buzava 16:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no difference between Kalmyk and Oirat language[edit]

"The two major languages comprising the West Mongolian branch are Kalmyk and Oirat. Between Kalmyk and Oirat, there is little phonetic and morphological difference. The major distinction is in their lexicons. The Kalmyk language, for example, has adopted many words of Russian and Tartar origin. Consequently, on lexical grounds, scholars have classified Kalmyk is classified as a distinct language (Poppe 1970)."

This is wrong. I removed this part. I met Oirats(Kalmyks) from China they use the same words. Buzava, please, you are native speaker in English not in Oirat(Kalmyk) language. Batrun 16:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not believe N. Poppe! Batrun 16:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's your PERSONAL OPINION.--Buzava 16:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Provide a citation that supports your position. The text can contain more than one opinion.--Buzava 16:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

State your position (disagreement) on . Let the Kalmyk people decide.-- 19:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC) refers to Kalmyk-Oirat as the same language Calmouk 01:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW where is your citation, Buzava? Calmouk 01:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I cited a prominent Mongolist. You cite a web site whose information is questionable, which is typical of you. As stated above, take any disagreement to the Kalmyk web site for Kalmyk people to decide. I'll register with that web site if you agree--Buzava 03:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Buzava, as I understand, you have already registered couple times there. I do not participate in Clone Wars. If you really want to have a productive discussion come to and invite your friends too Calmouk 21:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Calmouk, I prefer your alter ego Batrun. But then again Wincent doesn't do any damage other than to vote after the poll has been closed.--Buzava 16:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You are famous clone creator among Buzavas :) Which nick is your favorite - Buzava, Mad Mongol, Admin or Erdne B. ?
I read your posts @ KalmykPhilly. I thought you would be more civil, especially since its a Kalmyk web site. If I choose to register there, you'll know who I am. I'll guaranty that.--Buzava 23:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't associate with Communists pretending to be Kalmyks. Not do I generally associate with uneducated people. Also, your characterization of Poppe as a Soviet scholar is a lie. He's a linguist. Big difference. I'll change that in due time. Btw, the Buzava do exist.

Sorry, existence of Buzava does not mean that Buzava is a tribe of Kalmyks. Probably, Buzava is just a tribe of Russian Cossaks :) Calmouk 04:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You Communists have been trying to kill us off for nearly 90 years now.--Buzava 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Come on, Buzava! Prince Tundutov of Derbets was a main anti-bolshevik Kalmyk during Russian Civil War. Read The Kaiser’s Memoirs here
Your prince was only able to muster around 300 soldiers towards the anti-Bolshevik war effort. Hardly a threat to them.--Buzava 16:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Calmouk, I think your Sart Kalmyk. If I upload a cartoon lampooning Mohammed, are you going to start a jihad against me. LOL!!!--Buzava 16:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Buzava were exterminated not because of their anti-bolshevik simpathies but because too many poor Russians and Cossacks used to live inside and around Buzava's villages. And they could not miss such an opportunity to change their status. Answer, why remaining alive Buzavas fleed from Bolsheviks to Derbet Elista? Why Buzava people like Gorodovikov or Kanukov became such Communists and killed so many of Russians and Cossacks during Russian Civil War?
You claimed Russian racism was the cause not long ago. The Russian peasants stole our land. But they also stole the land of bourgeois Russians. Don't underestimate the Buzava's anti-Communist sympathies. See Operation Keelhaul. --Buzava 17:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Buzava, you are ridiculously inconsistent: You hate communists but at the same time you cite communist scientists such as N. Poppe. Please, think a bit more before doing something and everything will be hunky-dory. Batrun 14:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Calmouk, you ought to be ashamed of yourself in spewing lies about Nicholas N. Poppe. The man devoted his entire professional life to studying Mongolian languages. He should be celebrated instead of falsely labeled "Communist." Other than ignorance and illiteracy, what have you contributed to this article? You've just about chased away every non-Kalmyk editor and you've tried on numerous occassions to delete my contributions, including references. Please cease your Stalinistic tactics. In the end, it will not work.--Buzava 16:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw, you didn't bother to read the information on the the Ethnologue web site you cited. The author contends that Kalmyk-Oirat is an Eastern Mongolian language belonging to the Oirat-Khalkha subgroup. LOL!!!--Buzava 16:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I also know that you mass e-mailed Kalmyks around the world. Fwiw, you could've saved time by contacting me directly. RFLMAO!!!--Buzava 16:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Mongolian interlanguage link[edit]

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 Халимаг is. Wikipeditor 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are editors here that don't recognize the relationship between Kalmyks and Mongolians. --Buzava 02:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is one editor here who does not recognize the difference between Kalmyks and Mongols. Calmouk 03:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not referring to any such relationship. I'm just curious whether Халимаг is the Mongolian word for Kalmyk people, Kalmykia or something related. If it is, there should be interlanguage links to and from the matching English Wikipedia article, regardless of any relationship between the two peoples. If it is not, then what does it mean? Wikipeditor 03:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It means Kalmyk. --Buzava 03:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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 “Халимаг” 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)

Ah, it seems everybody has calmed down and this won't appear in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Ethnic feuds. Wikipeditor 23:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Requested move 2[edit]

Kalmyk peopleKalmyk (Oirat) people of Russia – This article is about Kalmyk (Oirat) people of Russia. Main article about Kalmyk (Oirat) people 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 and usage of particular name depends on country.

I'm on to you. You couldn't roll back Kalmyk into Oirat, so now you're rolling foward Oirat into Kalmyk. What's up with that? The Kalmyk Khanate /Dzungar Empire are dead, like the British/Soviet Empire. There's more substance to the Kalmyk people than military glory.--Buzava 11:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Ethnologue web page you cite recognizes the difference between Kalmyks and Oirats: Their language has diverged from other Mongolian languages and they are called 'Kalmyk' in Russia; 'Oirat' in China and Mongolia.


--Buzava 11:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting 2[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support Calmouk 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Artices aren't supposed to have the second-most common name in parenthesis in the title! --Khoikhoi 05:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Is that a rule of Wikipedia or just you aesthetic feeling? Calmouk 07:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Look around and find me one article that does this. --Khoikhoi 07:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Article Kalmyk (Oirat) people of Russia will be first with parenthesis in the title. I do not see any problem here. Calmouk 06:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Khoikhoi. Redirects are cheap, so use them – don't uglify the titles for perceived political correctness. See Occam's razor. Duja 09:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not matter of "political correctness" it is a matter to be scrupulous. Without it uninvolved people will learn that Kalmyks and Oirats are two separate nations Calmouk 06:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. If Britannica has it, we should have different articles on Kalmyk and Oyrat. No need to pander to silly nationalism. --Ghirla | talk 09:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Why Wikipedia should copy Britannica? It is not something like a Holy Bibble I hope.Batrun 10:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Batrun 10:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Astrid 10:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppetry in voting may lead to admin action. Don't expect to rig the vote this way. --Ghirla | talk 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Андрей, не меряй людей по своему аршину Calmouk 05:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Buzava 11:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Living close to Kalmykia I know certainly that Kalmyks and Oryats though similar peoples are nevertheless different. --Kuban Cossack 13:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
You saw only Oirats in Russia (BTW not Oryats) so unless you also saw Oirats in China (this what I doubt very much) you can not conclude anything Batrun 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. KNewman 15:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wincent 15:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • User only has 2 edits. --Khoikhoi 21:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. AJUKA 21:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • User only has 1 edit. --Khoikhoi 21:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've crossed-out suspected sockpuppets of Calmouk. These users have only had about 1 or 2 edits. --Khoikhoi 02:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. Do you really think that those people are my clons? Do not be ridiculous, Wikipedians ;) Calmouk 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • These user have like 2 edits each! --Khoikhoi 04:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • So what? They cannot vote because of that? And how it proves that they are my clons? You made serious allegation btw. I am waiting when you will make apologies Calmouk 05:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
          • You're asking them to come to Wikipedia just to vote in support for your move. --Khoikhoi 05:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I cannot make people vote in support. What I can is just ask people to vote. They themselves are making decision to vote in support or in oppose. It is not sockpuppetry. So, remove your tags and say "sorry". Calmouk 05:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm not apologizing. You posted a message on some nationalist webboard for a whole bunch of people who naturally have the same views as you to vote. What ever happened to Wikipedia being a neutral encyclopedia? --Khoikhoi 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
                • I see no logic in your statement. That "nationalist" webboard is regularly monitored by people with absolutely opposite point of view than mine. But if they have a common sense and some knowledge of History of Kalmyks then they will vote in support. Calmouk 06:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • Dear Calmouk! We've already had problems with folks like yourself. A Ukrainian User:AndriyK comes to mind. He was banned from editing Wikipedia for reverting articles and creating too many redirects without prior consent from Wikicommunity. He did the same thing you just did by going to some outside forum and inciting (can't think of another word) people to vote against something he didn't like. Your actions are about to cause an edit war of some sort, so be careful and watch what you're doing. It's a friendly advice, so no offense. I'm sure you don't want to be banned the first month you started using Wikipedia. KNewman 07:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
                    • Tell me my dear KNewman, what do you know about Kalmyks and Oirats to participate in this discussion? Calmouk 16:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
                      • More than just "друг степей калмык", trust me. User:Kazak pretty much summed up my point below. KNewman 06:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
                        • I doubt it very much. You NEVER wrote anything about Oirats. Batrun 14:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
                          • Ghirla, I often thought that you overestimated the use of sockpuppets in Wikipedia, but this guy here appears to be one :). I guess you're often right about them. Dear Batrun! If I never wrote anything about Kalmyk people, it doesn't mean I know nothing about them. Read my user page and show some respect, please. KNewman 14:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
                            • I'm sure you do know nothing about Oirats. Since you have not contributed a to THIS discussion exept some words about unproved sock-puppetry. Are you guys a task force of FSB in Wikipedia? You dumped Ukrainians when they tried to use their own names for the their cities, aren't you? Now you are trying to dump us, aren't you? Batrun 16:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
                              • It's weird when you emphasize the word "us", дорогой мой соотечественник. And please, do your research on the arbitration case of that particular Ukrainian user before shooting your accusations at me. Nobody dumped any of the Ukrainian users. Folks get banned in here for violating the rules of Wikipedia, NOT MINE. Just be civil in your discussions. You have to understand that voting is essential for the whole process of renaming articles. It often happens that the name of the article that a person doesn't like will remain the same by the decision of the majority. But majority must not be achieved by simply going to some online forum and asking people to create profiles in Wikipedia and then vote. KNewman 17:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
                                • The majority must not be achieved simply by asking other Russian editors (who know nothing about history of Oirats) to vote. That is what is happening here. By "us" I mean Kalmyk people whichever citizenship we have. Batrun 11:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose. --Irpen 09:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed new name seems more unwieldy and far less common. I highly doubt that it is used officially in Russia, either. Kazak 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Who cares how Russian call us, Oirats? Batrun 14:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Makonda 05.13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. DJANGAR 17.15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Jeka 14:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC) See -The Empire of the Steppes-by Rene Grousset, page 506 Kalmyks=Oirats
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request: Block Calmouk[edit]

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)

Calmouk is soliciting voters to come to his/her assistance:

--Buzava 23:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Try posting this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or just Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, or both. --Khoikhoi 23:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well... now it looks more like Buzava is trying to deprive us, Kalmyks, of our own point of view. I strongly oppose to the measures proposed by Buzava, who, I guess, has never been to Kalmykia, my Homeland. AJUKA 12:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop crying and start writing, but read NPOV before you start.--Buzava 14:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Btw, your assumption is false. But that's irrelevant.--Buzava 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Article is much better now than before this clash of opinions :)[edit]

--Buzava 06:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)But Buzava still do not want to accept any contributions into Religion section :) Calmouk 06:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
You or Khoikhoi just deleted photo of new Elista temple. Why, vandals? Calmouk 05:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Calmouk, I just restored your photo of the Golden temple. I also added substance for users to read. Fwiw, your history section sucks.--Buzava 20:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah! You are so kind vandal! You just RESTORED a photo of the Golden temple! Unbelievable kindness! :) Calmouk 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
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)

Calmouk, what have you contributed here other than four photos? My question is serious. I added content to your photo and will do so for the first map. How many bones do I have to throw to you before you thank me?--Buzava 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
Why do you bump down the religious section? You're a nonbeliever.--Buzava 06:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Violations of NPOV[edit]

A POV fork[edit]

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How migration to Dzungaria proves that Kalmyks were subject of Tsar? It proves absolutlely opposite. Calmouk 18:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a predilection to one particular point of view or ideology.

Buzava "dialekt" is bias. To call Kalmyks as Western Mongols - bias also

Is Buzava dialekt of Kalmyk language?[edit]

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)

BTW, Buzava do you speak Kalmyk? I can tell the difference between Torgut and Derbet, but never heard any differences from Derbet dialect when Buzava people were speaking exept too many Russian words. Batrun 16:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Batrun, when this article is completed, I'll link it to KalmykPhilly for Kalmyks to read. I'll even link it to FreeKalmykia. Make sure no one takes Buzava as a username on your web site.--Buzava 05:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw, if you speak Kalmyk why don't you edit the Kalmyk language article on Wikipedia? It could use some work.--Buzava 05:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Are you thick headed? I put in a citation that says Buzava is a separate dialect. You removed it because you hate the Buzava. Do not delete. State your counter-position with a citation.--Buzava 06:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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)


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)


Please, stop vandalizing the article by removeing relevant links. If you don't like a particular reference it is not a reason for removing it.

It's not a reference, it's an internet fourm. Please do not use Wikipedia as a platform to promote your webstie. —Khoikhoi 16:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The people there actually discuss history of Kalmyk people if you don't like their position it is not the reason to remove the link.
You're welcome to add content to the article, but Wikipedia is not a place to get people to go to your website, I'm sorry, but take a look at WP:EL. —Khoikhoi 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
For info (if you can't read) forum has information about history of kalmyks in the posts of its users.
Then add that info to the article, not in the external links. —Khoikhoi 16:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete other links also then! Why you are particularly against the link to Forum of Kalmyk Internet Community? It is not commercial web-site by the way!
Because it's an internet fourm. —Khoikhoi 17:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you have against forums? People there discuss historical and political issues concerning Kalmykia if you are not aware!
I repeat: Wikipedia is not a place to promote your website. —Khoikhoi 17:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I repeat: this is not promotion. Why you don't consider other links as promotion?
I haven't looked at the other links, yes, it is promotion, because you're trying to get people to go to your website. —Khoikhoi 17:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This can be said about any link. Are you trying to ban people from discussion of kalmyk issues?
By the way this is not my web-site and I can not force people to participate in discussions
Add content to the article, not external links. —Khoikhoi 17:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that pictures are not supposed to be used unless theres a reason, but one should be able to come on a page about kalmyks and see a picture so that they could ubderstand what diferent people look like in general. I don't know if the Kalmyks have a certain look but in general for many of these groups, there are no pictures of people who belong to them.


Hi, I wonder if I could ask a few basic questions?

(1) Do the Kalmucks of the Volga consider themselves to be "Mongols"? (Has this usage changed over time?)

It depends on who you ask. At an academic level, I think most Kalmyks recognize their Mongol origins. But I believe most will call themselves Oirat before Mongol. I guess it's like asking Kurds if they consider themselves Iranians.

(2) Do the Kalmucks of the Volga have any myths about a hero named "Oirat"? (The Altaians do.)

The Kalmyk mythical hero is Dzungar (Jungar), another name for Oirat.

(3) Was there any 19th-century contact between the Kalmucks of the Volga, and the Oirat Mongols of Djungaria?

I'm sure Kalmyk Buddhist clergy and worshippers traveling to and from Tibet encountered Oirats enroute.

(4) Are you aware of any Kalmucks who traveled south into Persia?

The Kalmyks fought on behalf of the Tsar in all of his campaigns against the Persians. Also, the Kalmyks had a leader, Ayuka Khan, who may have established diplomatic relations in the late 17th early 18th centuries. The Kalmyks also traded with the Muslims of Central Asia. I'm sure there was some indirect contact.

(5) How many Volga Kalmucks converted to Russian Orthodoxy? What were their lives like?

Not many. But those who converted were assimiliated. Hence, no groups of Kalmyk Christians or even Kalmyk Muslims. Poor Klamyks also faked conversion to obtain food and money

Some of the nobility also converted in attempts to gaining political favor from the Tsar.

(6) Does Kalmuck society have the same clan names that the Mongols, Kazakhs, and Altaians do?


(7) I vaguely remember a saying about Chingis Khan attributed to a Volga Kalmuck. (This was in the Christian Science Monitor.) It went something like "we will pass through fire for you." Does anybody remember the saying?

Never heard of it.

Thanks! Dawud

Your welcome. --Northside 732 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A few follow-ups, if I may. "Jungar" (Jejungar) means "Left wing" (of the White Horde), while "Oirat" means "Ally" or "Allies". How did this get turned into the name of a mythic hero? Is this a dim historical memory of Amyrsana or Galden, or somebody like that? (This seems to be what happened in Altai.)
How did this trade with Central Asia work? Did Muslim traders come to Kalmykia to buy wool and animal products, or did the Kalmyks drive animals do Central Asian cities, or what? And what specific Central Asian cities were their main trade partners?
What was the most usual route from Kalmykia to Tibet? It seems to me that Buddhists would have been vulnerable to robbery and so on.
Thanks again! Dawud
The following map was created in 1720—1725 by Sweden military officers who happened to be captured by Kalmyks and spent about 20 years in Kalmykia. As you can see Kalmyk Buddhist pilgrims traveled in their own country which is colored green. So there was no robbery. Calmouk
Kalmykia 1720.jpg

"related groups" info removed from infobox[edit]

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 16:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Kalmyks vs. Oirads from Mongolia[edit]

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 (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The allegations you criticize are just as patently false as those you've made above.--Buzava 16:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oirad Khan[edit]

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)

Defamatory statement about Kalmyk cannibalism(!) in History of the Jews in Romania article[edit]

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)

Who is that on the bottom picture?[edit]

Is that a politician or something? (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101


Rajmaan (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)