Talk:Qarai (tribe)

there are various groups wrongly presented as if they are directly related

Giray dynasty of crimea is not related to kara tatars directly. Girays are descendants of batu khan's youngest son, Toka Temür. They once served lithiunian king, then settled in crimea after Shirin tribe invited them. Shirins were a Turkic tribe from Crimea as well as Kereys. Once during an interdynastic struggle, a young khan of Toka Temür descent, hidden and raised by a hodja from Kerey clan. And that boy took his tribe's name Kerey as a honour to hodja. Later his descendants, Crimean khans called by distorted version of the kerey tribe's name; Giray, and it became the name of dynasty. The Kerey tribe of Crimea might be related to Keraite tribe from mongolia. Judaist Karays of Crimea and surrounding regions, also doesn't related directly to Kara Tatars. They are adhering Karaim brach of judaism and called Karay because of that. Most likely they are descendants of Khazars who converted to judaism from tengrism in middle ages. Furthermore, some Uighurs and Kyrgyzes from invading mongolian army also considered as Kara Tatars by anatolian turcomans. Each direction affiliated with a color in turko-mongol tradition and kara (black) is the color of the north, which usually added to tribal names like Karakoyunlus, Karakhitais, or sea names, like black sea (Karadeniz) which is located north of Turkey or Kara Sea (Northern sea above siberia). Kara Tatar name might be had meaning of northern Tatars, which may broadly indicate they are coming from north. Article mixed up some unrelated things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.121.121 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Living كرايلر‎ however belong to the Seljuk Y-Haplogroup E-M34 not to the Genghisid Y-Haplogroup C3 so there is a discrepancy with the tradition.Kaz 23:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge Khereid here

Support The term Khereid is nothing but a transliteration of the Mongol term for the Qaraei ethnic group who have historically been referred to in Syriac Church documents as Kerait. But Keraite and Khereid are nothing but old attempts in non-Qarai languages to refer to this ethnic group in its historical past. This group is a Kypchak group which has branches in EEurope and in Mongolia but still even today the main body of Qaraei are in Kazakhstan's Middle Juz. 78.148.51.117 (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Khereid is a modern day Mongolian Family name. YuHuw (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Girays

I think I should just make absolutely clear (in case my trolls say I am trying to make a connection with Crimea like the blocked user near the top of this page has tried) that the spelling used by the Giray dynasty of Genghisids appears to be كرايلر not قرايلر that is a difference of ك (K) not ق (Q) so I doubt they can be included in this article without a clear reference concerning the original correct spelling of the Girays with a ق (Q) in Ottoman sources. YuHuw (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Move

In line with WP:Bold I have moved the Article to Qarai Turks based upon the name of their entry in the Cambridge History of Iran (also used by Richard Tapper). The reason being that Qarai appears to be the more modern and up-to date terminology. The normal English forms are Karai or Qarai rather than Kara or Qara but the original letter is ق which is properly Q not K. Also because these Karai and Qarai and even their self-designation Qarailar are also the names of the cities they live in it seemed best to clarify with something after like Qarai (People) but since there may be more tribes with similar names in other nations I thought the simplest most succinct qualifier was Qarai Turks. Are there any objections to this? I would like to ask User:Dbachmann's opinion in particular as you have worked a lot on this page before I start correcting the redirects now. Many thanks YuHuw (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I finished updating the links and also added some redirects with variant spellings of the name in the hopes that people researching the topic will find this page and contribute. YuHuw (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Deserving of mention?

I have been asking around and found some interesting subjects relevant to the Qarai topic (which I have found can also be pronounced "Gharaei". Ishaq Khan Qarai - third from left [1] Abdolhossein Khan Qarai, first on right - a village elder in Shadmehr [2] Jafar Qoli Mirza Qajar, bottom row second from right - a Qajar prince and grandson of Ishaq Khan Qarai [3] Qahraman Mirza Qajar/Ghahreman Mirza Ghajar - a Qajar prince and grandson of Ishaq Khan Qarai [4] Foroogh Azarakhshi (1881-1963) - Founder of Foroogh School in Mashhad, a daughter of Qahraman Mirza [5] Mohammad Reza Ghahreman - Founder of Shadmehr and descendant of Qahraman Mirza [6] Mohammad Ghahreman - famous poet and a descendant of Qahraman Mirza [7] Zolfaghar Khan Qarai known as Emadolmamalek [8] Hossein Khan Qarai son of Zolfaghar Khan [9] Mohammad Khan Qarai son of Zolfaghar Khan [10] The home of Sultan Ali Khan Qarai known as Haji Khan Yavar in Rashtkhar [11] Shapshal must have got his ideas about Turkic Karaites while he was working for the Qajar Shahs. YuHuw (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Persian names

@Неполканов:, does this edit[12] meet the objection you raised in your edit summary[13] when you wrote "It is English WP ,you may add transcription with RS but Persian original does not make sense."-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits by Ogress

@Ogress, could you specify which source gives “Keraits” as an alternative name, and why did you remove the term Qara Tatars, when it is what the sources use? Aintabli (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Kerait: in the source. https://web.archive.org/web/20160130060112/http://blog.iran-carpet.com/index.php/item/2127-the-qarai-rugs-of-turbat-i-haidari-part3

Qara Tatars: this is the Qara'i of the article. I edited the term because it was not in a cite and there was no apparent reason for yet another alternate name to be used in the same text. If you are concerned about the exact wording, this section needs to be improved in general, because it is not clear that the name "Black Tatars" is important here. A short quote using this name would be clearer because I did not understand the text to be indicating anything other than an alternate name for the Qara'i. Is it the case that this needs to be clarified? Ogress 05:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ogress, the term "Qara Tatar" is actually sourced:[14][15]

It is quite interesting that you did not notice this term in two of these WP:RS, yet "Kerait" appears in the footnote of a WP:BLOG, which you seem to have removed in your edit (and non-WP:BRD revert). So, in short, Kerait is actually currently unsourced and would have to be unsourced anyways because the blog article had to be removed, and "Qara Tatar" is mentioned by two reliable sources. Aintabli (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Certainly I noticed it in the footnote, because I looked at it before I removed it. I'm fine with removing Kerait if you feel it is undue weight or simply confusing. We don't source in the intro section, generally; that should be in the body, so I removed that. In addition, Minorsky is cited in the first section mentioning their origin as Keraites.

Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead. See WP:LEADCITE for more information.

And yes, it's a blog; that cite appeared less than ideal when we have Iranica and the like, so I didn't move it.

It is not WP:BRD because I edited and you simply reverted. BRD is to discuss something that isn't obviously deliberate misinformation

If we want to talk suddenly about the "Qara Tatars", it has to indicate who they are. The article has discussed Black Tatars, but we need to be specific that the Qara Tatars = Qara'i = Black Tatars because it's all the same name. My edit was because it did not appear notable and also no link had been provided between the information and the article topic.

How would you like to resolve this latter issue? Do you want to restore the blog quote elsewhere, or leave it gone? Do you wish to delete Kerait? I leave the first up to you, the second I think it appears not valuable, and I don't have a strong opinion on the third.

I just want to add that a reversion, when it isn't only of a name, seems to me always an aggressive move. there were also line edits, which are not incidental work, as that is the majority of the work I do along with format issues. Were the shoe on the other foot, I would have, for example, simply deleted Kerait and restored Qara Tatar and noted in the edit summary.

Ogress 14:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ogress, Minorsky is irrelevant, because he presents "Keraite" as only the etymological origin, not the actual name. So, "Keraite" should be removed unless an RS uses it as a name alternative. "Qara Tatars" should be added to the lead and also relevant paragraphs, where the sources use the term. The lead should not read "Turkic peoples" but "Turkic tribe". Aintabli (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Another problem with your edit is how you changed the first sentence to "Turkic peoples in Khorasan, Azerbaijan, ..." as if this is a term used for Turkic groups from those regions in general. In actuality and according to RS, it is the name of a tribe. The wording is off. Aintabli (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand this point, I changed "tribe" to "peoples". I am a native speaker (you may also be!) and there is no apparent difference in meaning. Ogress 14:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference in the meaning. "Peoples" is not "tribe". The latter is much more specific than the vastly broader first and is used by RS. Aintabli (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've made some edits according to the discussion, do they stand? Ogress 18:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ogress They are okay. I don't see much reason in quoting Iranica in the Etymology section. If you added that with regards to my point about the first sentence, the issue was that "all or most" of the sources refer to it as a tribe and not as "Turkic peoples from several regions", which implies something way different: A regional designation for Turkic groups instead of a tribe. I've gone ahead and made the change I wanted to be made in the lead. So, your addition to the Etymology section was unneeded and thus can be removed. Otherwise, it looks good. Aintabli (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)