Jump to content

Talk:History of the Khitans

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

Sanskrit Cinistan

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Ben people

[edit]

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

Karolus

Muslim?

[edit]

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

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

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

Buraq Hajib and other Kara Khitai established a short-lived dynasty in Kerman. In time, their population was absorbed into the larger Iranian population. Y-Haplogroup material linked to Khitai can be found in descendents of men from Kerman, today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraq_Hajib — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.212.155.87 (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clashes with Muslims and sources

[edit]

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

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

Expansion

[edit]

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

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

Beijing

[edit]

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

Unclear: write in Khitan people or in Liao Dynasty ?

[edit]
Extended content

Hello, I think that the articles :

Are currently uncleardly differencied. Especially :

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, the current situation is :

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

Pre-Dynastic (388-907) planned expansion

[edit]

I'm currently reading "* Xu Elina-Qian, Historical Development of the Pre-Dynastic Khitan, University of Helsinki, 2005. 273 pages.", and so I plan to expand this Pre-Dynastic period.

My Plan(edit the plan) is vissible in the introduction, which I just rewritted.

My plan is to make :

  1. a section "Origines" (ante-388, cf Xu Elina-Qian Chap. 3, 20pages)
  2. extand section "Pre-Dynastic Khitan" (388-907) according to my source :
    • Militaro-politic history (cf Xu Elina-Qian Chap. 6 and 7, respectively 82 and 18 pages) : wars and peaces, submissions and rebellions
    • Social and Economic structures (cf Xu Elina-Qian Chap. 4 and 5, respectively 36 and 15 pages)

I will also widely use the Chap 1 and 8 (respectively : Intro and Conclusion) for quick overview.

Of course, I encourage you to read the Xu Elina-Qian's works (the Chap. according to the topic that you prefer), and to work with me. Yug (talk) = IP 12:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuration
;Remove because misleading
Eurasia c. 1200 on the eve of the Mongol invasions.
«The Khitan were known as خطا in Arabic (Khata) and are mentioned by Muslim chroniclers, such as Ibn al-Athir, al-Thahabi and Ibn Khaldun.[citation needed] They had several clashes with the Khwarezmid Empire, winning at first, and imposing annual tribute on some, with territorial concessions (e.g. Tirmiz was handed over to them at one point).[citation needed] They eventually suffered a catastrophic defeat at the hands of Muhammad II of Khwarezm and no longer posed a serious threat to Muslims in adjacent regions.»

Reason : Khitans never had battle contact with Muslims (by this time in modern Iran). This seems talk about Uyghurs-Muslim opposition.

See also User:Historiographer/My_history_maps#Historical_map_of_Korea

medival places to look for


http://map.huhai.net/32.jpg http://map.huhai.net/41.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.uyghurcanadian.org/images/map_u.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.uyghurcanadian.org/history.htm&h=323&w=610&sz=62&hl=fr&start=3&um=1&tbnid=mIb4lf58_pZh-M:&tbnh=72&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMaps%2Bof%2BKhitan%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dfr%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:fr:official%26sa%3DN

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was No move, Khitan people re-created. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that History of the Khitans should be moved back to Khitan people. Or at least a separate article Khitan people should be created. I have read the above discussion on the relation between article Khitan people and article Liao Dynasty. And I disagree with the solution. Usually "history of XX" is just a sub-article of "XX". It is not logical to create History of the Khitans as a separate article and make Khitans (Khitan people) just a redirect. The edit summary for moving Khitan people to History of the Khitans on 10 February 2008 argues that "History of the Khitans > [Khitan people + Liao Dynasty]". But "Khitan people" = "Khitans". How can "History of the Khitans" > "the Khitans"? If this argument can stand, should Jurchen people also be moved to History of the Jurchens? Of course we can write the whole history of the Khitans under the title Khitan people. And "Khitan people" > "History of the Khitans". We should also add ethnological data to it. --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article 'Khitan(s)'
The article 'Khitan' should be a wide overview with ethno-sociologic AND economic AND cultuo-artistic AND militaro-historic AND ... sections.
We don't have all this in similar rate.
As visible on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Khitan, Xu Elina-Qian's online PDF Chap.4 (socio) & 5 (eco) may provide a valuable data for pre-dynastic periode.
Article 'History of the Khitans'
The article 'History of the Khitans shoud talk about militaro-historic issues. That's the current article. And rename this militaro-historic data into 'Khitan' seems to me misleading, and will need division, and then rewriting.
So
So yes, I agree, we currently don't have an overview article, which (when data available on wikipedia) should be name Khitan. That's a lot of work to create a such article for the period going from 388 to 1211 in which Xu Elina-Qian may provide a valuable help, to complete with other sources for dynastic and post dynastic periods.
As I said, that's a lot of work to do, I'm sadly unable to provide it, I just hope that someone will provide it in the next years. Yug (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article, however, is not Khitan people, and should not be renamed that unless someone has the energy to expand it drastically first (and copyedit it in the process. (We should have such an article, but I'm not volunteering either.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like to add content other than history to the article if you agree to move it back to Khitan people. And you may create a separate article under the title like Pre-dynastic Khitans. Now this section is disproportionate long in the article. Thanks.--Neo-Jay (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have material on Khitan people, you can write that article now. Taking out redirects is normal editing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Pmanderson: if you are interested, English sources are listed in the Source section, to download (pre-dynastic) or to buy (Liao, post-liao). Yug (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My personal plan is to slowly manage the militaro-historic side of the Khithan history, from 388 to 1211, that this article 'History of the Khitan', I'm still in the Tang period, and I'm currently busy (real life + upgrate fr:Tang Taizong to the FA level).
Sadly... I have really few interest in economic, sociologic and cultural history, and will not manage this sides, neither for the pre-dynastic khitans, despite the source available (Xu Elina-Qian), nor for other periods.
Of course, if you may expand these fields that's really welcome. (As I said, that's need !) Then I encourage you to re-open the article 'Khitan' or 'Khitan people'. You can look at Song Dynasty and Tang Dynasty list of sections to help you. For the section '#History', I may help a lot by writing it (later), or you may pick up data from 'History of the Khitans'. That may create a good set of article !
Yug (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I just re-created Khitan people as a main article. And I withdraw my moving request.--Neo-Jay (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Date formats

[edit]

Hi

I have just edited the article but keep coming across the date format (third month, 743) or (twelfth month, 789)

Is this a special kind of reference to Chinese months and calendar or is it actually the same as "March 743" and "December 789" ?

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third month is NOT march. Don't modify it. --Yug (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC) (former author)[reply]


Split

[edit]

@user:Nlu: Long time not seen :) If you are still admin, this article need to be split via a duplication then editing in order to keep the page's history logs. As of now we got :

It would thus be best to have 3 balanced sections redirecting toward 3 focused articles. Yug (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yug: I don't believe that my involvement is per se needed. Under WP:PROPERSPLIT, I don't think admin intervention is required procedurally or as a matter of editing privileges. If you do run into something that actually requires admin intervention because something won't move/delete properly, please let me know the specifics so that I can specifically help you with that. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Khitans&oldid=1207558398"