Jump to content

Talk:Circassians/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Is "Adyghe" the correct term in English?

As I understand adyghe (self designation), circassians (in W. Europe), cherkess (in Russia] is a common name for many ethnicities: Abadzekhs, Besleneys, Bjedughs, Egerikhuays, Temirgoys, Khamyshs, Natukhays (Natkhuagias), Shapsughs, Ubykhs. In imperial Russia it was a common name for all these tribes. Only in soviet Russia appeared Adyghe (in Adygeya) and Cherkess (in Karachay-Cherkessia). It was a practise in 1930-ies in Soviet Union rename ethnicities acording to self designation: Udmurts instead of Votyaki, Komi instead of Zyryane. Do we have same confusion with Adyghe? Is Adyghe example of soviet's created ethnicity? Or it was divide et empera policy? --82.135.217.55 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You forgot the largest group, Kabardins. The word "Cherkes"/"chirkassians" is still in common use in Russia (and possibly Europe). And yes it was more of a "divide and conquer" thing; the Russian designations of "Adygetsi/Адыгейцы" (in Adygea) and "Cherkes" (in Karachay-Cherkessia) have to do with administrative partitioning, not ethnicity. As far as ethnicity, what you wrote in the beginning is correct -- Adyghe = Cherkes, further subdivided into a dozen or so tribes; many of them live in other places in Caucausus/Russian South such as Krasnodar & Stavropol regions, which are part of their historical homeland as much as Adygea, etc. --Let 07:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Circassian ethnic cleansing

Hey, I did an article about it. Everyone's welcome to add something to or correct the article, incorporate it into existing ones, and also to protect it from overzealous Russian nationalistic editor(s). Thanks! --HanzoHattori 23:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Foster parents

"Familial ties were not strongly encouraged; parents fostered their children to other adults [...]" -- actually I think only the boys were given away, the idea was to aquire pseudo-familial ties to other families, who could be called upon in case of trouble; family and "foster" family ties were very important and thus "encouraged". I'll correct this as soon as I dig up some references. Let 07:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Adyghe as mercenaries

Article claims that "The Adyghe first emerged as a coherent entity somewhere around the tenth century A.D" yet it's also said that they served in the armies of Rome even though the last Roman emperor was deposed in 476. Also I've never heard of Circassian auxiliary forces under any Persian dynasty.

For Rome read Eastern Roman (i.e. Byzantine) Empire Geoff Powers (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

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 23:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion in WP:ISRAEL

As I understand it, there are only Adyghe in two villages in Israel. Not to snuff them out of the big picture, but isn't that a little insignificant? Octane [improve me] 19.09.07 2248 (UTC)

Past Tense

Most of this article, such as the culture section, is written in the past tense. I feel like this implies that as a people, they dont exist anymore, but the info box seems to assert they do. I dont know anything about the topic, so I wont chang it myself, but I feel like it should be changed to show that yes, the Adyghe people still have a culture in the present tense. --DerRichter (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The first half of the culture section deals with the culture before the diaspora (see Muhajir (Caucasus)); certainly, there would be those who would keep up traditions, but their distinctness as a people, in general, is probably more difficult nowadays to see than earlier. Octane [improve me] 02.02.08 2124 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. --DerRichter (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Genetics

Ha, i just have the laugh of my life, what did they said about our people ? from Central/South Asian, and European ? thats not what my own lineage tells me , i dont need some jewish people form new york to tell me where my "lineage" is from thank you very much , the source is not found 404 , nice try new york ! Wikipedia is a lie, but thank to people like me who at least are from real Adygeya , you will know something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasukowazokovo (talk • contribs)

I have updated the citation to point to the journal article the link referred to. If you have published information indicating the genetics of your lineage is different, feel free to discuss it here. Please note, however, that your discussions should be confined to the content of the article, not your beliefs about "Jewish people from New York." --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Lineage? We are not talking about dogs , are we? I have more in common with algerians than with south asians.At that point you also can say that europeans have african lineage , this is the difference .Give some facts and more information about the study , but no! this is "wikipedia" ,here everyone is smartass and with 3 words everything is said ! Im not offended or anything , just the lack of interest in things amaze me . Adygeya have any relation with central,south ,european no in language not even in culture.Our dear "scientists" from new york maybe just pick some mixed adugheyes since the armenian and georgian populations is growing in caucasus like any other. This is not information , its just bullshit. --User:Sasukowazokovo (talk) 12:13 , 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I used the term lineage since that is the term you used and is used in the article, but I certainly mean no offense. Your point is well taken, that genetic relatedness does not imply cultural affiliation. The anthropological literature is replete with instances demonstrating precisely that. The inclusion of genetic information, I think, is set apart and provides only some information about a group; I don't think the phrasing in the article implies any level of cultural affiliation. Hope this helps, --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please be informed this information is a wrong information, The Adyghe are pure Europeans and because of that the researchers used them representing Europe; however, the connection between the Adyghe and Central Asia is due to the fact that a large groups Adyghe immigrated from the north caucasus to Anatolia from thousands of years and not the opposite, not because the Adyghe are mixed, but because the Anatolians have a European (Adyghe) bloods, thank you in advance. -take scientific information with the historical one- and you can know the truth.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.5.153 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The genetics text as it is does not make a tremendous amount of sense. They surely are from somewhere? And the race concept in genetics is usually treated with great care; also the genetics-language relationship is a difficult one to study. I can not access to the study in the citation from here, but I think this section should be changed a bit, to actually give some real information. Leirus (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Circassians=Adyghe

The article about Circassians refers to the same people. Circassians=Adyghe. Maybe the articles should be joined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.253.124 (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be joined with the Adyghe people. My great grandfather was Kabardin, I am German and don't know much about Kabardin. If it would be under the Adyghe people I would not have any way to find out about the Kabardin and their heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.208.93 (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

-> Kabardian should be included below the Adyghe people, since the Kabardian people are a part of the Adyghe people. They are a tribe just like the Abzakh and Shapsugh people. by ketaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.244.125 (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Aldamad Ahmet Namee Shapsug - The President of the Syrian State from 1926-1928

I cant find this in the source given, I cant find any source on the internet for this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I will therefore remove his name from the list. If anyone could provide a good reliable source/s that would prove us wrong - please do so. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

On May 11, 2011, for the second time in recent weeks (previous occasion was April 1), the links from this article (and vice versa) to some 16 foreign language articles on the Adyghe (Circassian) people were removed, presumably because the foreign langiage articles used the term Circassian, rather than Adyghe. However, so far as I have been able to determine, the articles in question relate to exactly the same subject as this article. The fact that English Wikipedia has chosen to use (the debatably more exact) term "Adyghe people", as opposed to the more popularly-understood term "Circassians" (or a variation thereof), used for many of the foreign language Wikipedia articles, should in no way prevent Users being able to link directly from this article to the appropraite foreign language article covering the same subject. The links should be reinstated. Davshul (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

picture of the fall of Damascus

The caption of the picture of the fall of Damascus has "A car carrying the Free French commanders, General Georges Catroux and Major-General Paul Louis Le Gentilhomme, enters the city. They are escorted by Vichy French Circassian cavalry." The Free French fought on the side of the allies against the Vichy regime, and I have never heard of victorious officers being 'escorted' by the enemy. Is there another way to word this to make sense to a total layman like me? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Cherkess4.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cherkess4.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Circassian female ceremonial dress.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Circassian female ceremonial dress.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Circassian female ceremonial dress.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Turkey 140,000 Circassians?

It's not possible. First of all Turkey is knows as the place with the most Circassians in the world, and about 90 percent of the Circassian were deported to Turkey. The reference source is absolutely wrong. And according to this and this there should be over 2 million Circassians in Turkey.--Adamsa123 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Turkey#Percentages of ethnic groups in Turkey for a discussion of how this manipulatively this editor used the source, reverted. Lumialover2 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

When the population below the age of 18 is added to the findings of ethnic identity distribution among adults in Turkey by subjects' responses, the population of Arabs is calculated as 550.000. The same calculation reveals that the numbers of immigrants may be 310.000, Laz 220.000, those of Caucassian origin (Circassian, Chechnian and Georgian) 210.000 and Roma people 30.000.

What manipulation were you talking about again? --Mttll (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Your 140,000 claim was from a table in the study that, as we've already discussed, must not be used for these purposes since it talks about something different. Lumialover2 (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Read what I last quoted again. This is the final result (with population below 18 is in consideration) and not the "raw data" as you are fond of calling it that way. --Mttll (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Response please? I will be restoring the figure in the infobox unless I receive a response in 2 days. --Mttll (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I already told you. That source is simple wrong and as a prove I gave three sources. If you want a reliable source search for sources that discuss only about Circassians. --Adamsa123 (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The source will not be wrong just because you say so. It's especially more reliable than this mere news article, because it's based on a fully verifiable extensive study on the demographics of Turkey. --Mttll (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, if you really want a reliable source search for sources that discuss only about Circassians. It's true that it is not wrong because I said so, but it's a fact that the country with the most Circassian in it is Turkey. If you would have said there at least one million Circassians in Turkey that would make sense, but only 140,000?--Adamsa123 (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
According to the survey that study is based on, nearly 0.2% (about 140 thousand people) in Turkey identify as Circassian, while 0.1% (about 70 thousands) speak Circassian as mother tongue. You have to consider some factors like intermarriage and assimilation. Personally, I don't believe the number of Circassians in Turkey would approach to a million unless people who are of partial Circassian descent are included. Though in that case, a single person can descend from several different ethnic groups, that's why such surveys as well as national censuses on this matter are based on self-identification. Anyway, the source is legitimate, so I don't see why it shouldn't be be included in the infobox at least along with the current ones. --Mttll (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
What you mean you don't believe the number of Circassians in Turkey would approach to a million. Accordion to the source in the article there are at least 6 million Circassians in the world. 700,000 in Russian, 150,000 In Syria, 100,000 in Jordan, 40,000 In Germany, etc. So where are the other 4 Million Circassians live?. About 90% of the Circassians were deported to Turkey by the Russians a century ago. You can't ignore all those facts.--Adamsa123 (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
That source obviously reached the total figure by adding up what they think are the number of Circassians in different countries. So we are not supposed to take the total figure as an a priori fact and distribute it to different countries. And actually, you are right that Circassians were deported in the 19th century. That may have some relevance here. Let's take a look at a fact in the 20th century:
According to 1965 official nation-wide census in Turkey; out of 31,009,934 (total population), 58,339 (0.18%) spoke Circassian as mother tongue, while 4,563 (0.01%) spoke Abaza as mother tongue. --Mttll (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Well if you still planning to put that source again in the article, at least please don't remove the 2 million and its sources from the list.--Adamsa123 (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
They were present in my last version. For the record, I consider we have reached a consensus. If I'm wrong, please let me know. --Mttll (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of the Circassians in Turkey doesn't count as Circassian. They count as Turks. The Turks don't recognize most of them as a separated ethnic group, and like I said before there is no way there are only 140,000 Circassians in Turkey. About 90% of the Circassians were deported from Caucasus to Turkey and most of them stayed there.--Adamʂa123 (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

They count as whatever they identify as- that's how ethnicity works, by self-identification (within reason). If they identify as Circassians, than they can count as such. --Yalens (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think 140,000 Circassians is ridiculously low (was largely ridiculed and discredit by most Circassian organizations in Turkey) even when taking to account massive amount of Turkification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesij (talk • contribs) 00:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Neopaganism as minority religion

Although I know some people probably don't like this fact for various reasons, according to recent surveys ([1][2]), neo-pagans constitute a considerable portion of Circassian areas: 12% in Karachay-Cherkessia and 3% in Kabardino-Balkaria. The one reason I haven't put this on the page yet is because it isn't clear yet to me whether a substantial amount of the pagans are Circassians or if they're primarily Karachay/Balkars (does anyone have the percentages by ethnicity?), though other sources have indeed referred to the existence of "traditional religion followers" among Circassian populations...--Yalens (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to just go ahead and add a small section, on the grounds that no matter how marginal or non-marginal the phenomenon is among Circassians (we dont' know if its the Karachay-Balkars or the Circassians mainly or both), the existence of Circassian pagan revivals is documented. --Yalens (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Arena - Atlas of Religions and Nationalities in Russia. Sreda.org
  2. ^ 2012 Survey Maps. "Ogonek", № 34 (5243), 27/08/2012. Retrieved 24-09-2012.

carpets/mats

This section was originally about mats woven from grass (put in December 2010, unreferenced); it's since been changed to carpets, which are not the same thing, though grass is still mentioned. The problem is, supposedly the grass used for "thousands of years" is pampas grass, which as the name suggests is native to South America, and was only introduced to Europe in the 1800's not long before the Circassian diaspora. Also, there seems to be very little on Circassian rugs or mats; the only references or images that come up on a web search are here. So it does seem to be part of the culture, but widely noted? Hmm... KarlM (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Adyghe in more languages

I will add their name in Russian and Persian as well, as I believe both Russians and various Iranian empires played a big role in shaping the most important scenery of Circassian history, aka in the 17th/18th century by the Russo-Persian and Caucasian wars.

Regards ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisAragon (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved per consensus, to the more common name as used in the English language. bd2412 T 21:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Adyghe people → Circassians – per WP:COMMONNAME Jaqeli (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support tentatively As it is used here, Circassian is the better and more accepted term in the English language, with use dating back centuries. Adyghe seems pretentious, it is like trying to call Chinese people "Zhongguoren" in English... That being said, it doesn't make much of a difference to me. --Yalens (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Note the corresponding articles using some form of "Circassian":

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Boris Johnson as a Circasssian

Right, I've looked into this with a lot of detail and I can find no reliable link for this claim. The Guardian had an article about this disproving it as nothing more than family folklore, please remove him from the pictures of notable Circassians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.160.18 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed. Even if it were true, it should never have been added. Having a tiny amount of ancestry from an ethnicity does not make you a member of it. The notion that "unruly hair" is evidence of Circassian ancestry is obviously based on the PT Barnum "Circassians", who have nothing to do with real Circassians. Paul B (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Boris Johnson often says that he is Circassian through his great-grandfather's side.12 He is of predominantly English and German origin, while his patrilineal descent is known as being ethnic Circassian.3 He seems to be quite aware of who he is. The surname may be misleading since his paternal grandfather, Osman Ali Bey, adopted the surname of his maternal grandmother.4 Among his notable Turkish-Circassian relatives, who also descended from Feride Hanım, include Zeki, Sinan, and Selim Kuneralp.5 Again here Johnson himself mentions about his Circassian background.64 If Circassians were not displaced and very few in population, then it would be not necessary to include him in the infobox. It is not like a Scottish American, as you may well distinguish between them. As to the infobox, it is definitely far from being adequate either way. I will look at it later.Listofpeople (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the point entirely. He is not a Circassian. He may or may not have a tiny amount of Circassian ancestry. That's it. Your ridiculous interventions in the infobox have already produced serious complaints on this page mere days after you made them. Also, your new user-identity appeared only a few days ago. I would point out that sockpuppetry is wholly unacceptable. Yes, we know he talks about it. That's essentially for political reasons, as the content of his comments make clear. But there are numerous articles that say clearly there is no actual evidence that it's true. Paul B (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I demand as a Circassian!

My name is Andy Napso (Анди Нэпсэу) I am a true Circassian from my father and mother side and from my grandfather and grandmother side, I am from Kfar Kama Israel, Circassians in diaspora, my last name is Napso (prenounced Nepsow) from Shapsugh clan from black sea cosatal area. I DEMAND! as a Circassian to remove all those photos and names, those people are NOT CIRCASSIANS!! those are from different nations who got only a little Circassian blood from diaspora and slavery, the fact that you put them there is insulting the Circassians! The only true Circassians from those people are : Bibars Natkho, Sati Kazanova, Yuri Temirkanov and Al-Ashraf Qansuh al-Ghawri who was a Circassian MamlukeAndynapso (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough...--Yalens (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd forgotten this. An editor recently changed a lot of photos to include several Britons and Italians as "Circassians" on the ridiculous grounds that they had Circassian ancestry - which is like adding Barack Obama to the infobox on Irish people. Firstly, the editor does not seem to understand that "Circassian" was often used as a generic term for an an Asian concubine (see Circassian beauties), and in any case in most cases there is no reason at all to justify such claims regarding figures such as Carlo de Medici [1]. Originally he even included Leonardo da Vinci! The inclusion of Boris Johnson is just utterly laughable, linked to an article in the Daily Mail about his hair! ("He went on to suggest that his distinctive shock of unruly hair may be a genetic legacy from another ancestor –- a Circassian slave girl from the Caucasus mountains of southern Russia.") Others sources are equally weak [2]. "Mademoiselle Aïssé" was a French courtesan. She claimed to be the "daughter of a Circassian chief", which is typical of the kind of exotic stories such figures constructed for themselves, and very likely linked to the popular myth of Circassian beauty, but we really can't be sure how much of it is true. The editor simply seems to have done a Google Books search and added the most famous names he could find, without any real knowledge of the actual evidence in each case, or the way the term "Circassian" has historically been (mis)used. Paul B (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not just the Brits and Italians- a lot of even the Turkish ones are pretty questionable because they have about 1/4th Circassian heritage and identify only as Turks...--Yalens (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of further discussion or suggestions, I've restored the earlier version of the infobox of images. It's removed some of the more palpably ludicrous inclusions, along with those individuals who have been supposed offspring of "circassian slave girls", where "circassian" is just a generic term for "white middle-eastern" that does not necessarily imply membership of the Adyghe people. I should add that the current images include equally 'dodgy' figures, but if the OP feels so so strongly about this, the best approach would be to do something himself by finding better examples of Circassians. Paul B (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Andynapso, Yalens I've updated the infobox as you guys discussed, removed the controversial or un-cited ones. I know that the mutual co-operation solves problems on those ethnic issues but as Paul B is a total jerk (precisely, thats how he treats) so I'm not going to rely on his claims without any facts by the way.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 12:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you blathering about? You are not helping by such utterly childish behaviour. You are merely displaying your ignorance. The facts are in the links I pointed to. Or you could take the trouble to do some research yourself. Since the changes to the infobox which you supported have already been met with outrage by editors who have no connection to me, I leave to you to decide who is the "jerk". Paul B (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well i just said that he got some 'references', after that you thought that i was somewhat supporting him(by the way i'm not supporting anyone as you claim) and accused me of being a sockpuppet and 'merely displaying my ignorance'. I dont need to research like you daft. My girlfriend is Circassian (and yes she and her family speaks Adyghe language) and as she is fond of her ancestors' or peoples history etc., i know a lot about them. Enough with your aggression mate. You are a Brit right? Jerk is not suitable for u, daft is more precise, on a second thought :) elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 12:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I accused you of displaying your ignorance. That was after you called me a "Jerk". I never accused you of being a sockpuppet. Please try to read what is actually said. Paul B (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Didin't you [3] ? Dumbass. Did you swallow your tongue or what Paul B? elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 13:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a discussion section on an academic or what attempts to be as academic as possible article strictly for information and presenting all viewpoints without prejudice or bias. Swearing and insulting each other serves no purpose or use in helping wikipedia. So I fail to see why some of you decided it was even useful SandeepSinghToor (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Mehmet Oz and Keriman Halis Ece are notable Circassians. They should be added to the infobox too. I think the infobox is so weak. Lamedumal (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ece's roots are Abkhaz. While Abkhaz are often included, in the framing of this page it refers specifically to the Adyghe, not including their Abkhaz and Abazin cousins...--Yalens (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the infobox right now is kinda weak. I think some of the former added notable Circassians should be readded. I'm thinking about Mehmet Oz, Shah Abbas II of Persia, Çerkes Ethem, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, Ajda Pekkan and Ali Fethi Okyar. These people are all at least half Circassian.
Using people like Orhan Pamuk is a bad idea, as he's just 1/8th Circassian.
LouisAragon (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

They are not circassian but turks with circassian ancestory. These people belongs to circassians in turkey article. İn this article, first or second degree circassian ancestorial people should be represented like the other ethnic articles like germans frenchs spainards turks etc. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 22:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am very confused what is going on here. Someone "demands" certain people to be removed from the article, claiming that they are not Circassian. That the same person says that those people are "from different nations who got only a little Circassian blood from diaspora and slavery, the fact that you put them there is insulting the Circassians!" Excuse me? You are feeling insulted when you see Mehmet Öz, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Orhan Pamuk, and Türkan Şoray in the infobox, just because they are living in diaspora since their ancestors were displaced? Could you please define a set of criteria for being Circassian? Regarding Turkish-Circassians, why do some people treat the term Circassian as a nationality? Why would not a Turkish-born who holds the Turkish citizenship be Circassian? Sati Kazanova is a "true Circassian", but the others not? I do not belittle anyone, I just cannot understand this mentality at all. I was shocked when I first saw, in the article's very first lines, that: "The term 'Circassian' includes the Adyghe (Circassian: Адыгэ, Adyge) and Kabardian people." That is more like insulting and I assume that you all know why. I will not even make the effort.. If no one "demands the removal" of that discriminatory definition, it is no trouble at all, isn't it? First and foremost we need a proper definition. Since mine was reverted, I am waiting for someone to edit. Let alone the Abaza, Abkhaz, and even the Ubykh who are not Adyghe, does this definition include formerly-Kabardian Beslenei? I bet some even believes that certain tribes who live, by majority, in Krasnodar Krai, rather than the Republic of Adygea, are not Adyghe. Not pathetic that much? Not yet? Those who have lack of knowledge about North Caucasian peoples, do not have to edit this page. By the way, some talks about my new-user identity. Indeed it is new. I am here since I have heard that you did not bite the newcomers. As to Orhan Pamuk, what is this 1/8 thing? I wish you read his books where he often refers to his father as being a so-called full ethnic Circassian, as if it is possible. In an interview, he says all his father's family is Circassian, but a Turkified one.1 Anyway, Pamuk is Circassian and is known for being so.23 These tiny-amount-talks are being spoiled. If you are looking for an old actor or an actress for the infobox, I would say Ediz Hun,45 6 Filiz Akın,7 and Türkan Şoray891011 because they emphasize their ethnicity all the time. Undoubtedly they are the most prestigous ones in Turkey. Selda Alkor12 and Nevra Serezli13 are also leading actresses. All have Circassian fathers, except for Serezli whose father is Turkish. What about the most famous director of Turkey, Nuri Bilge Ceylan?14 I could count hundreds of them, but wait until my list which is why I am here. Carlo de' Medici was immediately excluded, perhaps not proper for the infobox, but he is of Circassian ancestry. Please check the sources I provided beforehand. The Barnum refutation is "ridiculous". It is also interesting that no one mentions about Comtesse Leïla, Hussein Onn, Onn Jaafar, Zeti and Azah Aziz, Hishammuddin Hussein, Rezzak, Ungku Abdul Aziz, and even the emperors or kings from all around the world. Oh, of course, again, that is why I am here to speak out. Yet, I am sorry for the seemingly-aggressive attitude. All I want is the best for this article.Listofpeople (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Circassians are a diasporean people. The utter vast majority of their population does no longer live in the North Caucasus. They have had a large diasporean population since the time of the early Safavid Persians, Ottoman Turks, and Mamluks. I really don't get what the problem is with posting people of half Circassian descent. Notable Circassians of full Circassian descent are rather rare. Really, types like Shah Abbas II of Persia are half Circassian. Çerkes Ethem, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, Ajda Pekkan, Ali Fethi Okyar are also all peoples of at least half Circassian descent. Some others those who the user Listofpeople mentioned too. They are still all half if not more Circassian blooded. To further aid and improve this infobox with notable peoples of Circassian descent my opinion is they should all be (re)-added. People have to accept Circassians are a mixed people and predominantly live in the diaspora. It's more than logical most Circassians are not full blooded outside of Russia.
Adding these people to the article of Circassians in Turkey/Circassians in Iran/Circassians in X would make no sense. They should be all on the same place to represent the collective prestige of the Circassian people. My take on this. Endearing ethno-nationalistic pride never really did hold substantial use in the past, and neither does it now. LouisAragon (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Circassians in Palestine???

Also as a Circassian from Israel, here i know, that there are two Circassian settlements, there are 4000 Circassians in Israel, there are NO Circassians in Palestine, that I can assure. Also there are no Circassians in Uzbekistan, nor Iraq and Saudi Arabia. There are in France and Canada though, but i don't know the numbers...Andynapso (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To Listofpeople

I read your comment, and do you think that you can tell me who i am better than me? You wrote "why do some people treat the term Circassian as a nationality?" Do you think Circassian is a cult or religion? that anyone can join?, Circassian is a NATION it is blood and race, you must be Circassian from father and mother side also from grandfather and grandmother side. And yes those Turks you want to put as Circassians insult me and many Circassians, our nation is so close to be extinted, and with help from people like you it will only be more close to be extinted. Turks took many Circassian women as sex slaves in the exile times, and we both know they had offsprings, but it doesn't mean they are Circassians, they are Turks and their offsprings will be Turks also. Of course there are Circassians in nationality living in Turkey and many countries, but those people you put, are not full Circassians, only got some ancestory.Andynapso (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that you are not teasing, I believe I am supposed to answer. Since we do not know each other, I am in no position to tell you who you are and vice versa. Right, it is not a religion and we are not talking about something like matrilineality in Judaism. I did indeed say that the term Circassian referred to a nation (אומה), not a nationality (אזרחות). Despite there is no State of Circassia where one can hold Circassian citizenship, are you still claiming to be a Circassian by nationality, rather than ethnicity? In addition, I am very glad that you, Mr. Napso, can trace your Circassian lineage back to Adam and Eve. Thank you for the comment. Now I know how you and those who supported you see things. I will pay attention accordingly. Greetings from the 21st century.Listofpeople (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you know Hebrew, Nationality came from Nation and i reffered to a nation, my mistake, indeed we don't got a country, also you can say that the Circassians nation is the only nation that 90% of its people live in diaspora, we are minority in our homeland. I am Circassian in ethnicity, so right now my nationality is Israeli, and yes i can trace my lineage, as i said we are not a cult nor religion. And i would like to know in the 21th century are there no nations on earth??Andynapso (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making discussions personal on the common talk page. --Yalens (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Cherkess be merged into Circassians. I think that the content in the Cherkess article can easily be explained in the context of Circassians, and because of the overlaps in both articles the merging of Cherkess will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Cherkess article gives the explanation of the term as "a term derived from the Russian language name for the Circassians". And the information about the sub-group of the Circassians living in that area is also given in Besleney, which is more accurate naming. Cherkess just the way how Circassian sounds in Russian. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure the term derives from the Russian word for "Circassian" but that does not make this group of people any less real or distinct. English sources use the name "Cherkess" for the subset of Circassians of Karachay-Cherkessia, not "Besleney" or "Circassian". Soviet and Russian statistics designated them as "Cherkess", not "Besleney" and distinct from Adyghes, Kabardays, and other Circassians. For Wikipedia to "correct" such "mistakes" is original research or hiding something that clearly exists in sources and reality. —  AjaxSmack  14:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now! I think as long as there is a modicum of information that is "Cherkess"ian and not "Circassian" then they should remain separate. It seems that they consider themselves different, speak a different language than other Circassians, live in a distinctly separate area; however I could change my mind as I do my own research. speednat (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is this still up for debate? Definitely oppose. They've splintered off and are different groups who speak different dialects - notice this distinction is made in about 20 different other-language Wikis with separate articles. Wikimandia (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Difference between Cherkess and Adyghe is the difference between Greece and Hellas.The Difference between Circassians and Cherkess is Circassian is just latinized version of Cherkess. 85.97.83.76 (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have stalled with a split vote. I am removing the merger template as it seems unlikely that this will move forward. HGilbert (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Again; expansion infobox

Circassians are a diasporean people. The utter vast majority of their population does no longer live in the North Caucasus. They have had a large diasporean population since the time of the early Safavid Persians, Ottoman Turks, and Mamluks. I really don't get what the problem is with posting people of half Circassian descent. Notable Circassians of full Circassian descent are rather rare. Really, types like Shah Abbas II of Persia are half Circassian. Çerkes Ethem, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, Ajda Pekkan, Ali Fethi Okyar are also all peoples of at least half Circassian descent. Some others those who the user Listofpeople mentioned too. They are still all half if not more Circassian blooded. To further aid and improve this infobox with notable peoples of Circassian descent my opinion is they should all be (re)-added. People have to accept Circassians are quite a mixed people and predominantly live in the diaspora. It's more than logical most Circassians are not full blooded outside of Russia.

In other words, I think more notable individuals should be added to the box, no matter whether they're half blooded or not.

- LouisAragon (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no way that I can disagree with your lines. Except for Pekkan, you are definitely right. I have just seen the previous comment of yours. Thank you for reminding us the infobox. To me, it is very sad that there is still much confusion on what the term Circassian really means. This is something I have never experienced before, though. Indeed diaspora is the key word. I do not know what the problem is with half-blooded ones. If it were the List of Circassians, then no one would be able to stand against what we are saying as long as the people in that list had at least one—yes, even one—Circassian ancestor. Because it is such a rare thing to have a 'traceable one'. Of course, it needs to be supported by reliable sources, too. This time we are talking about an infobox, but our account is still valid. So, I do not know. Nonetheless, I could give examples of so-called full Circassians, but another problem is that we do not have enough media files on Wikipedia. We are constrained with what we have.
Despite the artificial nature of the subject, there is too much to say. I do not know where to start. Seriously, is there some sort of one-drop rule to take into account? Do we consider self-identification or what? Any way you slice it, these people are very few in population. That is actually why one should not compare Circassians to, for instance, Anglo-Americans. Well, most of the U.S. Presidents, from Washington to Obama, have had what we call English ancestry today. However, while there are many famous and prominent people native to England (ever since they could remember), it would be unnecessary (albeit still justifiable to a certain extent) to add a non-British citizen U.S. president with distant English roots to the infobox on English people. On the contrary, for Circassians, there is no need even to create articles like 'Circassian Americans'. Let alone the.. Okay, I expressed myself well enough. Hope we can all move on soon and work together to improve not only the infobox, but also the article itself which seems to have more serious problems. The Soviet administrative policy on North Caucasian peoples cast its shadow over the entire article. I am disappointed about that. Adyghe vs. Kabardian? I do not intend to go informal, but what on earth are we talking about?.Listofpeople (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: the matter isn't whether they're full-blooded, it's whether they actually meaningfully consider themselves Circassian as they're only 1/8th, can't speak the language and often barely know anything about it. (and in fact, in a number of countries Circassians do largely marry within their community as they live in villages founded and largely populated by Circassian refugees, or rather their descendents)--Yalens (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Yalens, can we really measure that? Well, LouisAragon is right anyway. Besides, what LouisAragon says does not contradict with your position. What I think is that language, in this case, is not a criterion at all. Self-identification might be; however, we should not always stick to that as historical figures like emperors that are predominantly Circassian than anything else, does not necessarily have to consider themselves to be Circassian as they represent their dynasty, patrilineal lineage, etc. It is correct that a Circassian traditionally marries another Circassian. It has always been quite possible in small towns such as Kfar Kama, Israel. You might know why. Yet, this is not to say that they practice endogamy which is strictly prohibited according to the Circassian worldview of Habze. It is a bit complicated, but regarding prominent Circassians from Turkey where most of them live, there is almost no one who does not emphasize, even overemphasize, his/her Circassian ancestry. This is how everybody knows about their origins in the first place. I think we should have been already discussing both historical and contemporary males and females from different countries and occupations for an equally-distributed infobox. Besides, after seeing that this article incredibly fails to define the term Circassian, I am very glad that there is a separate stub called Adyghe people. Thank God. I was really worried that all tribes of the Adyghe branch would be merged into this most problematic article of Circassians.Listofpeople (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, if you're counting someone who's 1/16th Circassian, can't speak the language and is largely ignorant of anything about Circassian culture and whatnot a Circassian, then that's just crazy. --Yalens (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree not the individuals with such low Circassians ancestry and are totally oblivious about their Circassian heritage, but many of those who I mentioned were/are at least 50% Circassian. It's those who I recommened for adding. LouisAragon (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with the page as it is now, which for the most part doesn't have any of those questionable individuals mentioned above. There was a problem when people like Galileo and some Malaysian parliamentarian were included. --Yalens (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Lets keep the infobox this way. I've put those people to the image row in older versions but it I see that this became the main subject of an argument, no need to keep it going. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 14:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Introduction and so forth

A proper infobox definitely matters, but before that, one has to improve the introduction. In its third line, it is stated that "the term 'Circassian' includes the Adyghe (Circassian: Адыгэ, Adyge) and Kabardian people." This is incorrect because the Kabarday and the Besleney were once the same tribe, comprising the eastern group of the Adyghe branch of Circassians. However, according to that sentence which does not even mention about the Besleney, Kabardian-speaking people are not Adyghe. How shallow! They speak the same language, but different dialects. That is all. In their native, the Kabarday call their language simply Adyghe. So, the false description of that introduction has to do with the Russian administrative divisions. The Soviet designations are unacceptable. "The 2010 Russian Census recorded 718,727 Circassians, of which 516,826 are Kabardians, 124,835 are Adyghe proper, 73,184 are Cherkess and 3,882 Shapsugs." Adyghe "proper"? Those from the Republic of Adygea? Seriously, proper?

This sounds a way better: In its narrow[est] sense, the term "Circassian" includes the Adyghe (Circassian: Адыгэ, Adyge) and Ubykh people.

Or we should perhaps put forward that the main tribes of the Adyghe branch, too. These tribes include the Abzakh, Adamiy, Besleney, Bzhedug, Hatuqwai, Kabarday, Makhosh, Mamkhegh, Natukhai, Shapsug, Temirgoy, Yegerquay, and Zhaney.

Moreover, many still consider the Ubykh to be a tribe of Adyghe as one of the twelve stars of the Union Flag of Circassia represents the Ubykhia. Besides, the article Ubykhia says that "Ubykhia was defeated in the Russo-Circassian War and the population, estimated to be about 40,000, fled to the Ottoman Empire en masse, which resulted in the total disappearance of the nation." Total disappearance? Who? From where? Okay, when Tevfik Esenç passed away, the Ubykh language went with him. It is very unfortunate, but many Ubykh people live today. Mehmet Aslantuğ is half Abzakh and half Ubykh. Aslantuğ is fluent in Adyghe. In his column, Hıncal Uluç always mentions he is Ubykh through his father Fuat Uluç's side. Just like Esenç, Keriman Halis is an Ubykh-Adyghe from Hacıosman, Manyas. Her Circassian relatives include Deniz Uğur, Neveser Kökdeş, Kenan Ece, Melek Kobra (wife of Ferdinand Tayfur), Muhlis Sabahattin Ezgi, and Turgan Ecce (of Galatasaray).

Still though, I favor this: "Despite the term 'Adyghe' (Адыгэ) includes Kabardians in addition to the West Circassian-speaking people in history,[1] the term 'Circassian' is referred to include any people of Pontic-speaking Northwest Caucasian (Ubykh, Adyghe, Abkhaz, and Abaza) descent who have strong genetic and cultural affinity.[2][3][4] However, other North Caucasians, namely the Vainakh, Ossetian, Karachay, Balkar as well as the Daghestani (particularly non-Turkic Caucasian Avars, Dargins, Lezgians, and Laks) were also considered to be Circassian in the Ottoman Empire.[5][2][6][7]"

The reason why I support this one is that Circassian is a collective term which was coined by the Ottoman administration. In other words, It comes from the Turkish word "Çerkez". It refers to all North Caucasians. Unlike the Soviet one, the Ottoman designation does not aim to separate culturally and linguistically-related people. To your surprise, it actually takes it much further. The Turkic-speaking peoples of Karachays and Balkars, for instance, were known to be "Kara Çerkezler" (Black Circassians) and "Dagh Çerkezler" (Mountain Circassians) in the Ottoman Empire, respectively. Among the Daghestani, Kumyks are also Turkic, but most of them in Turkey identifies themselves as Circassian, because they are mixed with the Adyghe in Turkey. The Belgian-born singer Hadise is predominantly Kumyk and Lezgian, but she constantly says she is Circassian.1234(video) She is of Adyghe descent as well, though. Speaking of Hadise, she does know all the steps of qafe dancing.

Each tribes and branches needs to have their own pages, but this article could have been a collective one. It is entitled "Circassians", but the content is almost irrelevant. It should at least refer to all Northwest Caucasians, if not North Caucasians. The vast majority of the Abaza and Abkhaz in Turkey call themselves Circassian. They do not even use different words for Abaza and Abkhaz. Most famous and prominent Circassians from Turkey are of mixed Adyghe (especially Kabarday and Abzakh), Ubykh, and Abkhaz origin.

Language: "The Adyghe also speak Turkish and Arabic in large numbers and various other languages of the Middle East." Various other languages such as Hebrew? Then the Adyghe speak Turkish, "Russian", and Arabic in large numbers and various other languages such as Hebrew. Yet, if there are only 3,000 Circassians in Israel, then should we add German (40,000) and English (25,000). Oops, there is something wrong with this.

Religion: "Predominantly Sunni Muslim, minority Habze, Orthodox Christian, Shia Muslim, and Catholic" Well, unless this article refers to peoples such as the Daghestani, Shia Muslims are not even minority. Circassians in Iran? No, still not Shia.

Again, a collective article for Northwest Caucasians would be the best. By the way, on Turkish wikipedia, there are two separate articles called Çerkesler (Kuzey Kafkasyalılar) (Circassians: North Caucasians) and Çerkesler (Adığeler) (Circassians: Adyghes). That is another great idea.

And I have changed this.Listofpeople (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gammer, Mos%u030Ce (2004), The Caspian Region: a Re-emerging Region, London: Routledge, p. 67{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ a b Aslan, Cahit (2005). "Doğu Akdeniz'deki Çerkesler." Adana: Kafkas Kültür Deneği Yayınları.
  3. ^ Oral, Mustafa (2008). "Sultan II. Abdülhamit döneminde bir 'Çerkes Tarihi' yazılması girişimi."
  4. ^ circassian.us : Biz Çerkesler
  5. ^ Karadaş, Yalçın. "Çerkes Kim, Çerkesya Neresi ? Gelecek Hakkında Düşünceler." Jıneps Gazetesi. Istanbul. 23 March 2012. Web.
  6. ^ Altın, Gülüzar and Meryem Gümüş (2011). "Çerkeslerde kaşenlik âdeti üzerne sosyolojik bir inceleme: Eskişehir örneklemi." ed. Mehmet Aksoy. Bursa: TÜBİTAK Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu.
  7. ^ Ahmet Katav; Bilgay Duman (November 2012). "Iraqi Circassians (Chechens, Dagestanis, Adyghes)" (PDF). ORSAM Reports (134). Retrieved 15 April 2013.

Article name

Shouldn't it be Circassian people? I think it's a better name because it represents the entire ethnic Circassian people and not sub-groups.--Adamʂa123 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It should; but we somehow have two articles for one people, this, and the Cherkess. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a real problem because the Adyghe people, Cherkess people and Circassian people are in fact the same ethnic group. Each one doesn't see them self separated or different from the other and they all call them selfs Adyghe. Even the Kabardians call them selfs Adyghe and their language Adyghe language rather than Kabardian language. I can understand having a different article for the Kabardian people, but why have three articles about the same people? it's just confusing.--Adamʂa123 (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed merge proposal

I have removed a merge proposal requesting merge from Kabarday, because they are a distinct ethnic subgroup of Circassians.--90.191.91.122 (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Circassians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. TravisRade (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not an RfC and it doesn't follow the RfC process. It's just a collection of opinions and has no authority. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The RfC was opened correctly. please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_for_the_deletion_of_all_the_galleries_of_personalities_from_the_infoboxes_of_articles_about_ethnic_groups. Dkfldlksdjaskd (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Circassians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The infobox photo

I think the photo should be left in, it is not being disputed, so I don't think it should be removed because of some abstract policy that it might be disputed in the future. It also helps that it is a group photo, it is not just one person, so it does not really create the impression that "All Adyghe persons look like x." Seraphim System (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

As per physical representation, that was brought up by the guy with the rant about Islamists/Christians/Nazis etc. I personally think the picture is fairly representative physically and has actually a fair diversity of appearances. But the issue of why I reverted it was just adherence to policy as we can't have double-standards (I've also removed pictures elsewhere for this reason, as in Arbereshe people and the like). The picture stayed on the page, I moved it to the gallery as it does after all show Circassian folk dress and the flag so its useful. --Yalens (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
If the policy changes or is significantly disputed I'd be fine with readding it. --Yalens (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System I don't want to edit war so I'm not reverting you at the moment-- here's the policy, WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES --Yalens (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I see that and it says pretty unambiguously Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members — what I'm confused about it why multiple experienced editors, some who participated in the RfC, seem to be confused about the difference between a single photograph and a "photomontage or gallery of images" Seraphim System (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
If you read the RfC, it's noted that single images present all the same issues of representation, and no we're not just talking about physical stuff. A picture of two Japanese girls in a kimono shouldn't be used to represent all Japanese people, and such a picture was removed from the Japanese people page for all the same reasons, and was discussed in the RfC (with dissent). In my opinion, it's just a way to stop endless edit warring over pictures in the infobox which often are the focal point of edit wars (I know its ironic to say this right now). Like for example do Germans get to put Einstein in their infobox despite having once had a government that drove him out for not having the right blood to be German? What about Marx? A lot of Jewish users and others of course wanted them removed, while Germans and others fought back. (actually it was much more complicated than that, like apparently people were saying he's American not German as well, but I think you can understand why this might be thorny?). By the way I just guessed there was a war over that and sure enough I was right, I never participated in it as you can see if you check the archives of German people. And then of course there's warring over the number of women in the picture, the number of minorities (i.e. is a black football player from Africa who lives in and plays for Portugal Portuguese??? What a fun debate to have...) and so on, not a great time. --Yalens (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
What you are saying now is not the policy, nor is it part of the closing consensus which is for image galleries — if you are worried about edit warring, the best thing to do here would be to start an RfC. I don't think this image presents any major problems—it is not an image of a single person of note as representative for an entire ethnic group, which has obvious problems beyond people fighting over Einstein's ethnicity. This image presents no such problems and includes both boys and girls. I don't see why anyone would edit war to remove this picture. Seraphim System (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This entire thing has been silly and I regret my role in it, and its actually pretty embarrassing. Please forgive me. --Yalens (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, this has become silly. I've just followed a serious of edits by the both of you speculating on what photos are, ("I'm pretty sure its a protest, etc.). Again, reiterating WP:NOR. You've restored the photo in the infobox based on the same WP:PPOV arguments that these children are indicative of who and what 'Circassians' are. Is the ethnic group young, contemporary children dressed in highly stylized interpretations of a 'national costume' with a contemporary flag? In fact, the Flickr photo it is taken from actually bears the question of 'where' it was taken. How do you even know that they are Circassian children, not a dance ensemble from a different ethnic group who are performing folk dances from other regions of the world? Many a time, editors who focus on ethnic group articles (including myself) have found images copied and uploaded with the wrong information gracing articles as if they were reliably sourced. Personally, I found a Hungarian amateur dance group dressed in Poltavan regional folk costumes presented on the Rusyns article as being Rusyns in traditional costume. This is precisely why there have been extensive discussions about the use of any form of single image to depict any ethnic group in problematic. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 13, focussing on the "Implementing consensus" section under the RfC. There have also been RfCs on the use of any human group Men, Women, etc. being represented based on 'editor discretion' in case readers have no concept of what a man or woman looks like. Choices are inevitably going to be WP:POV, and we should not treat readers as if there were 3 year olds who need images to inform them of what ethnicity or human groups look like. There is the option of a well thought out, carefully selected gallery (which already exists) for photos and other images that don't necessarily meet with WP:PERTINENCE to be used in line with relevant sections. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Flag in Infobox

Iryna Harpy Why did you revert this, it looks terrible now. "The purpose of the infobox is not to be decorative"? Seraphim System (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

See WP:DECORATIVE. This is not even a 'flag' per se. Do you actually know anything about the subject? It is the flag of Adygea in the Russian Federation. The flag was used by Adygea Circassians in the 19th century as a war flag. Note that the use of the flag calling it "Circassian" is WP:SYNTH, and any instance of its use (as it stands below the infobox) needs to be properly qualified and attributed according to WP:PERTINENCE. The Circassians were not/are not only the Adygea, therefore using it in the infobox is about as far as you can go in misrepresenting the ethnic group who are represented by the WP:TITLE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphim System and Yalens: Incidentally, my apologies to you both for being so curt in my communications. On re-reading my comments, I realised that my tone was bullish, which wasn't actually my intention. I'm afraid that I can sometimes get so caught up with 'getting on with the nuts and bolts' of article issues and fixes that I communicate in my own terse version of shorthand (which can come across as being on the uncivil side of WP:CIVIL). Please feel free to pull me up on that. I'm happy to explain myself at length when I pull my head out of the moment.
Further to the subject of the dance ensemble and the Circassian flag issue, I do think that an additional gallery could possibly be edifying for the reader to get a better overview of the historical/cultural background whereby they are a minority ethnic group in regions they once populated, as well as diasporic communities predominantly in nation-states they were forced into fleeing to under the Russian Empire. The flag, for example, could well be captioned with as the Adyghe's war flag in the 19th century, but still used as an emblem of nationhood/ethnicity (thereby not needing to be part of a gallery). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
^I really appreciate you saying that, it's really good that some editors at times take a step back because too often I think the environment here on wiki feels pretty bad.
With regard to the flag, if I'm not wrong, it was designed by David Urquhart, a Scottish UK intelligence agent who had intended to help the Circassians unify their resistance (with little luck in that front until it was too late, 1861), so the flag does have a notable history that can be cited (it's in Charles King's Ghost of Freedom at least, I'm pretty sure), and perhaps one worth noting if it is placed into the history section -- imo history could be expanded and we have plenty of English sources now we could use (Natho, Jaimoukha; both also cover pre-Russia stuff extensively too). I've been intending to do that but predictably haven't.
And with regard to the gallery, I the gallery was pretty convenient because there were a lot of useful pictures that otherwise have a problem of cluttering the page, though some did duplicate each other. I get that people posing can be an issue. For some cases I'm inclined to believe they're legit but I don't know if that counts -- for example the Israeli Circassian children file was uploaded by an Israeli Circassian editor from the same town (there's only two anyways) here, so I guess my trust in it might be a funny mix of OR (?) and assuming good faith [dunno what the protocol is for citing that your own pictures are legitimate...]. But most of the time the children themselves aren't the point (notwithstanding one now banned editor who seemed to think they were removed for being fair?), it's rather their clothes or accessories, and in a gallery I don't think it necessarily is making a claim they are representative, it's just saying this is a dress/instrument/longknife etc that is particular to Circassians. We could say "children in Circassian dress" instead of "Circassian children in traditional dress", do we still run into issues then? Granted, we don't actually need so many that basically duplicate the clothes (which is why I'm fond of Israeli Circassian photo, since it efficiently has two different male costumes, the female costume, diaspora setting and the shashkwa conveniently in the same picture). --Yalens (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes I am familiar with the subject actually and it seems kind of silly to harp on the flag when the rest of the article is in such poor shape and doesn't have any standardized way to refer to Circassians. I don't know about recent developments in Russia, but after the Circassians left Russia Adyghe came to mean the 13 tribes (who went into exile). All of them, though it used to be a separate tribe—sources for this period are sparse, though. Some people may not even know what tribe they were originally from so it is not like they are or are not Adyghe, in modern terms it essentially does mean Circassian and it basically is a national flag. The flags of the autonomous regions in Russia seem to be more an internal political issue then one of nationality or ethnicity. We also use Cherkess in modern language—it does not mean Karaçay-Cherkessia. I don't think people living in Kabardino-Balkaria are necessarily Kabartay, I think some even moved back from diaspora recently? We can't assume the families of the people living there were Kabartay before the exile. As far as there is an Adyghe republic within Russia, this is a separate issue from Adyghe as a national/ethnic identity in the diaspora. This basically is the national flag of the Circassian people. It is widely recognized and understood as such. At least this is what it means to all the Circassian people I have met, do WP:RS say something different? . Seraphim System (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I've never heard of the flag being presented as anything beside a national flag, and indeed it was adopted in the early 1860s as a flag of national unity when the Circassians set up their parliament in Sochi. I'm sure that can be attributed to an RS, though that doesn't necessarily "prove" it's a national flag as that's pretty subjective and impossible to prove for pretty much any stateless nation without universally recognized representation. For comparison -- the flag on Romani people isn't attributed on that page and its page is without sources and while the flag was designated by the World Romani Congress that has the same issues of if that organization represents worldwide Roma as the Sochi parliament does/did, so if its a problem here that should also be fixed. Nobody but ex-Soviets uses "Cherkess" to mean Karachay-Cherkessia and indeed even ex-Soviet Caucasus peoples often disregard the Adige-Shapsug-Cherkess-Kabardin division and treat them all as one ethnic group. In some places like Turkey "Cherkes" has come to mean not just Circassian properly but is used colloquially for any descendant of any 19th century exiles from any Caucasus nation (Hadise for example is just a part Lezgin but gets called Circassian). Afaik when the Russians divided the Circassians into "nationalities", it wasn't really by what tribe they were, but rather by where they lived (so someone of Kabartay descent who happens to be in "Adygea" is "Adyge" not "Kabardin" - to be fair the organization was also partly geographic); dunno what happens with the returnees but at the moment there aren't that many, just a few from Kosovo and Syria mostly, and I doubt the Russian authorities have some consensus on how to classify them. --Yalens (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for the time it's taken for me to weigh back in on this issue. The (very big) difference between the use of the flag on the Romani people article is that there is far more information available globally on the Roma, full stop. I don't think it would come as a revelation to any of you that high profile NGOs have the greatest political clout in getting information out to the general public (which is why there are thousands of minority groups lobbying for attention at any one time). Unfortunately for 'Circassians', no such organisation has ever picked up the baton and run with it, therefore RS will inevitably be difficult to find. As for the use of the flag on the Romani people article, I've always been dead set against it, but WP:CON would have it that all Romanis identify with it as their emblem. Is that the reality for a people who have populated regions all over the world for centuries? If you were to ask Romanis from South America and Romanis from Lithuania if they even self-identify as being the same ethnic group, would they state that they are? In contrast, 'Circassians' were only displaced relatively recently, and over a relatively shorter distance. I'm up for being convinced that there's a difference between WP:NOR and WP:NOTSYNTH if there is consensus on the matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Roma international NGOs may have more clout with human rights organizations (personally I have no idea about their clout on the ground and doubt it can be cited). There are groups like the Ashkali (and the "Egyptians") who complicate things by claiming to not be Roma at certain times but not others. On the page of World Romani Congress I don't see anything that clearly legitimizes the group as representing global Roma, on the contrary its conferences are apparently funded by some decidedly non-Roma sources. This is essentially an other-crap-exists argument, but it raises a problem-- what, then, is a falsifiable criterion that a flag is "representative" of a group? Other ethnic group pages do use flags in infoboxes: Italians (despite other identities held by some citizens -- "European", "Padanian", "Sardinian", etc), Armenians some unrelated POV issues plaguing that page I see..., Georgians, and this one is particularly "interesting" -- Copts, using a 2005 flag made by activists that isn't recognized anywhere except New Zealand, apparently. I don't care if the flag is in the inbox but it seems we have an issue on Wiki here that needs a clear answer. --Yalens (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Exoethnonym

Hi, everyone. This is a very good article, but.. Name "Circassian" became an ethnonym specific to Adygha people after a long history of applying it to many peoples related to Caucasus, Black Sea and even Ukraine. Even Cossacks and Russians of Ukraine and Kuban and Terek were known under this name. And Turkic people of the Terek and Eastern Caucasus (Terek Tatars) were also known under that name. There are a huge amount of sources and maps I'd be happy to share, but in a relevant article. So, Circassian and Circassia even until the 18th century were general geographical terms.

My question is: how is it better to cover this aspect of the term? Is it better to create an article "Circassians (geography term or exo-ethnonym)" with disambiguation page, or is it better to create a chapter in the existing article (which I think can break the single ethnic pattern and be very difficult, and probably much protested by present-day Circassian, and most likely we should avoid the second way)? What shall I (we together) do? --Arsenekoumyk (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Issue isn't even uncommon, plenty of other ethnonyms originated as geographic terms and sometimes are still used that way: Irish, British (if that's an ethnicity), Palestinian (inhabitant of Palestine, ironically once was occasionally used to mean "Jews"), Syrian (similar to above, in some languages still used for a type of Christian), Bulgarian in many languages (as Bulgar/Balgar/Bullgar, first meant Turkic invaders, then inhabitants of Bulgaria, then finally Slavs of Bulgaria), Macedonian (a particularly controversial case), Georgian, Azerbaijani (once just meant the historic province, not one ethnic group) and so on. In the case of Circassian the confusion exists for the exonym but not the name in the Circassian language itself. If you have RS on the issue, sure make a page if people think it's notable. --Yalens (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey Yalens, thanks for your answer! how is it better be called then? Circassians (Caucasus), Circassian (geographic), Circassian (exoethnonym)? I'm not yet very familiar with English wiki and might not consider some common ways of naming a page.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Just Circassians, imo. Nobody seriously confuses them with Cossacks or "Terek Tatars" (I assume you mean Nogai people). There were some Nogai tribes that ended up getting called Circassian because they lived surrounded by Circassians. But they also then got assimilated into Circassians, so the point is moot as they are now Circassians. Cossacks, on the other hand, can get very confusing. --Yalens (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I now realize you're referring to this. Hadn't heard of them before. Doesn't change things as Circassians has had Western (Italian) usage referring to the same group for 4+ centuries, while ^those guys are mostly unknown (even more so than Circassians) and as the page illustrates, they already have their own name that is not "Circassians". --Yalens (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Yalens In Russian historiography there's a decisive inter-ethnic view on the nature of the Circassian term, unlike Adyğe or modern Cherkess because it was used purely as a name for anyone settled between the Azov Sea and Terki-fort. It had been long considered as a synonym of Cossacks (Qazaq, Kazak), which also at some period was the name for Adyge (now known as Kasog). Both Kazak and Cherkas signified a "fighting, warrior" people. By Terek Tatars I mean Turkic-speaking peoples of Braguny principality, Taman possession, Northern Kumyks, part of Small Kabarda (least of all Nogais and Kazakhs). Russian wiki page for the term is very precise about that. Moreover, the whole Caucasian nations including even Chechens and Kumyks were considered a Circassian in Turkey and Persia. In Turkey the process of attributing this name only to Adyge isn't even yet finished and it pertains to any muhajir from the Caucasus. As an example I recently discovered the settlement of Der-Ful in Syria (former Ottoman Empire) which is founded by Kumyks, latter joined by other Dagestanian peoples, but in most sources it's given as founded by "Circassian muhajirs". There are, again, some more historical amd modern sources, stating the fact of still prevailing general nature of "Circassian" in Turkey - it's a synonym of Caucasian there. If a Turkish asks Chechen, Karachai, Balkar, Dargin or Kumyk about their origin they say Circassian, but speaking to each other they know who is who.
I can't use the name Circassians bc its used, but Circassians (Caucasians) counts, I guess, doesn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenekoumyk (talk contribs) 22:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
A lot of museum items in the west with no particularly known origin but Caucasian patterns were named as Circassians also, same story in Russian today. It seems like modern usage consumes the historical and generalises with no account for all the distinctions in the past--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC).
ArseneKoumyk Sorry I got confused as to what you were talking about before, probably because of the Cossack comment (forgive me, the thing I know least is the Turkic parts of the Caucasus). You could also make a disambiguation page Circassians (disambiguation) explaining the source of confusion as comes from Russian (and Turkish?). But if it was supposed to be the subject of a page-- Circassians (historical exonym)? it's an "exonym", not an "exoethnonym" Don't use "Caucasians", in English it's a racial group based on skull shape which includes Europeans, Middle Easterners and sometimes Indians, of which Circassians and Georgians are (in pseudoscientific nonsense) the most "pure". It's probably worth noting that the same term got used really differently in Russian (North Caucasians), and in Turkish (muhajirs) and then both are different from the Western usage (from Italian, the Adyghe and Ubykhs).
Admittedly, occasionally the word is used differently (Shenfield calls Abkhaz Circassian, for example), and then we get translation errors but we shouldn't confuse ourselves on English wiki as use of Circassian to mean Adyghe (and Ubykh) is most typical in the academic literature in English, and there have been issues with this in the past here As a side note, do you Kumyks actually call yourselves Circassian in Turkish? Because in the past I've seen you guys get confused instead with Caucasian Tatars or Lezgins rather than Circassians. Unfortunately, the Caucasus region is really complex, and people often mislabel things -- Chechens are often mislabeled as Kabardins or Kumyks for stuff in the Late Middle Ages, because they got ruled by those two peoples, while Laks and Lezgins get confused often because their names are similar, and sometimes all Dagestanis are "Lezgins". --Yalens (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yalens Thanks for your tips! Not only Kumyk but any Caucasian muhajir calls himself Circassian (Çerkes) in Turkey - they know between each other their Kumyk Chechen Ossetian and other ethnicities, but still use the term as a geographical one and as use it to to appear stronger as a united community in Turkey. Unfortunately with Azerbaijani there is also confusion. "Caucasian Tatars", "Dagestanian Tatars", ""Terek Tatars" are Kumyk names (Dag. Tatars is also pertained to boardering Kumyks Azerbaijanis, Terek Tatars was the name of the present Terek Kumyks) in all Russian sources, including the first ever written grammar of the Caucasian languages - Makarov's Kumyk Grammar (the Grammar of Caucasian Tatar Spoken language), where he also explains differences between Kumuk, Ottoman, Crimean, Nogai. Azerbaijanis are actually "Zakavkazskiye Tatars" in the same sources meaning smth like "after/beyond-Caucasian Tatars" or "Tatars on the Small (South) Caucasus". Thanks again for your kind help and corrections--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
and karachai-balkar were called Mountain Tatars--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

How reliable and unbiased is Walter Richmond and his The Circassian Genocide?

False exaggerated statements in quote from The Circassian Genocide by Walter Richmond, indicate it is not a good source. As such, that quote should be removed. Here are just 3 examples of falsehoods and exaggerations from that one passage alone. "Circassia was a small independent nation ... become one of the first stateless people" - There was no independent state to begin with. "For no reason other than ethnic hatred" - That is too broad, unsubstantiated, and exclusionary, claim about motivation of Russians, for a military operation lasting for years, and costing them in lives and treasure. There clearly were other justifications for all that cost than purely "ethnic hatred". "Circassians had become one of the first stateless peoples in modern history" - Given that many nations, with similar or more developed social structures, population, and/or settlements, in North and South America and in Africa, were deprived of them, and forcibly resettled ( and sometimes subjected genocide), by modern states as varied as USA, UK, France, Spain, etc., way before this in modern era, from at least 16th century, that statement is factually inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.58.232 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of sourced content. Wikipedia is written according to information in reliable sources, not according to whether you like the source or not. Your rationale for questioning Richmond is your own original research. Find reliable sources questioning Richmond's evaluation and we might have something to talk about. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Since it is clearly POV I moved the Richmond quote to the bottom to make it less prominent. The above criticism is not original research but common sense and clearly true. The footnote indicates that it was a blurb on the back cover, not something that Richmond said. I have read both of Richmond's books and do not remember any more ethnic hatred than what one finds in any war. "For no reason other" is clearly false since the Russians were engaged in a war of conquest and found an unusually harsh way to end resistance. As for stateless peoples, most peoples do not have states and most states do not correspond to nations. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Circassians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Religion section / Due and undue weight

The section on religion as it stands now contains WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issues, and is heavily slanted towards several faiths other then the one most predominant among Circassians. There's only two lines that detail Islam in particular. An entire paragraph on one incident of sectarian violence. Another paragraph on Christianity, and three large paragraphs on traditional Khabze religion.

Per WP:DUEWEIGHT:

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view.

Per WP:PROPORTION:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

The predominant religion should be placed atop followed by minority religions. Given that Khabze religion has its own subsection, there is no need for it occupy such a large and leading paragraph on the general parent section either. A summary of details in the dedicated subsection is enough, with more in-depth details appropriate on the spinoff article.

Per WP:SPINOFF:

There are two situations where spinoff subarticles become necessary, and, when done properly, they create the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible:
  1. Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem
  2. Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections
In both cases, summary sections are used in the main article to briefly describe the content of the much more detailed subarticle(s).

Anyone else have any comments about this? DA1 (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@DA1: I just blanked everything that didn't have a source. That help any? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Not everything is some plot. A simple solution is just to expand the info on Islam among Circassians -- which there are plenty of sources about. Additionally, while I do think Islam should get more space, I strongly dispute the insinuation that discussion of the indigenous Circassian life philosophy, Habzism is "UNDUE" (it is relevant indeed even for many Muslims).--Calthinus (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Calthinus: Nobody accused anyone of plotting. Please refer to WP:AGF. The prominence and placement of detail plays into due and undue weight. If you look at any other article on ethnic groups or geography, the predominant religion comes first followed by minority religions and beliefs. Please refer to the Wikipedia policy quotes above. Namely the extensive detail on the Habze religion which are better-suited for the spinoff article, as well as the inclusion of an incident of sectarian violence (quote no. 2 and 3). DA1 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
If sectarian violence is common then that should be stated as such, with an inline hyperlink leading to the spinoff article to elaborate its specific details. If it isn't common, then it should be left directly on the spinoff article. In either case, the main article should be for summary not elaborate detail. DA1 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
DA1 as per the Russian census those who list native beliefs are quite significant. I agree we don't have to go into details and I'll be reducing the stuff about Tsipinov to a single sentence momentarily, and adding stuff about Islam so that it should have about a little over half the section. Cool it with the WP:BATTLEGROUND.--Calthinus (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Please stop arguing with each other about who's attacking who and just improve the article. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Excuse me but please point out what part of my post implied that I need to "Cool it with the WP:BATTLEGROUND"? DA1 (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You just proved the point... the point of this is not to fight, it's to collaborate. Which of course I'm willing to do, and am doing right now.--Calthinus (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Says someone who's opening line was "Not everything is some plot." I think you're interpreting WP:BG very loosely. Nothing has devolved into factionalism or namecalling. I appreciate the edits, it's better than what the article section had before. DA1 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
DA1 Guilty of hypocrisy as charged :). My apologies. I have to stop editing the Balkans, it messed with your head.--Calthinus (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Circassians in Egypt

Hi, either the history section or the short section on circassians in egypt should link to Circassians in Egypt. At least I did not find that article linked here. 62.227.255.194 (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

List of useful references

Bookku (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Requesting you to visit Draft:Circassian women and help expand the same if topic interests you..

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Refs

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circassians/Archive_1&oldid=1136614236"