Talk:Kist people

"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 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph referenceing Ossetians Kists and Chechens is not cited. There is no documented source which states chechens fled kist's for ossetians, this also contradicts the reference later in the article that some 7000 chechens sought and found refuge in chechen communities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.216.40 (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox ??

Present day Kists are 100% muslim. Ahl as-Sunnah, also Qadiri and Naqshbandi tariqah. Christianity among Kists extinct before 1910. - 77.92.233.155 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Georgian name

Please add a transliteration/transcription of the Georgian-language name into English. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kist people. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829152310/http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=9724 to http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=9724

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) 11:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Photo

Other people in the photo. " Seven old people who survived are residents of the aul Dargo and our former opponents on July 6-10-11, 1845." Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Question

WikiEditor1234567123 Hello, i was wondering why you deleted the Vazha Pshavela book speaking about Kists? why does it matter if the Kists he referred to are Melkhiy? Melkhiy are one of the biggest Chechen teips in the Pankisi valley. Also regarding the 1926 census could you please provide the page for the 1926 census where the Pankisi Kists are designated as Ingush? Because in the 1926 census i could only find one which mentioned Ingush Kists, we know that Fyappi were designated as Kist and so were other Ingush who lived specifically in Ingushetia. The 1926 census does not specify where these Kists live, this article is about Pankisi Kists as is stated in the headline, don't you think it's more proper to move this census to the "Kistin" article? The Tsutsiev source does not specify where they live either, in fact only time he specifies a location of any Kists it is in the 1897 census where writes The number represents those living in the Tioneti District of Tifl is Province who gave “Chechen or Kist” as their native language.. I can't get a hold of the Volkova source, does she specify the location of the Kists? Also the following text about Ingush living in South Caucasus, are they mentioned as Pankisi Kists there? i could not find them being mentioned as Pankisi Kists in that source (although i only checked the pages you linked), if not then why are they even mentioned in the article? Goddard2000 (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the census question i did some research and found a good source on it here so i think we could rewrite the demographics to "In 1886 the Kistins were marked as Kist, in 1897 the Kistins were marked as Chechen-Kist, in 1926 the Kists were marked as Ingush-Kist who's native language is Chechen and in 1939 the Kists were marked as Chechens". This source provides the settlements and everything, so we can include it. Also what do you think about removing those blocks of % of men & women? they just take up space and will take up more space if we include two other censuses. Goddard2000 (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Because the whole story doesn't even take place in the Pankisian Valley, it takes up place as far as I know, in Melkhiste. And the story doesn't specially speak about the Pankisian Kists, so it's really not needed in the article but can be added to the Kists (ethnonym) article or the future Melkhiy article. The thing with the 1926 Soviet Census is a little bit sketchy: Ingush proper and Kists are not differentiated so we really don't know how many from the number are the Kists and how many are the Ingush proper. For the census, I added the 2 secondary sources with quotes from each one:

Volkova, Lavrov "По переписи 1926 г., численность кистин (были записаны ингушами) составляла около 2 тыс. человек (...)"

Tsutsiev (in the map he includes Pankisian Kists as Ingush but clearifies it): "The same ethnic designations are used here as in the 1926 census."

In case you think I added this to simply show them as Ingush, I included this census because it's a major one. Sure we can add these censuses but I suggest we will add like 3–4 of them in total, to not fill up the space too much.

The percentages on the other hand don't really take up that space and won't hurt to remain as they're. Btw do you have this source "Ахмат Гехаевич, Мациев (1965). Чеберлоевский диалект чеченского языка // Известия ЧИНИИИЯЛ Языкознание. Grozny. pp. 2–6"? I can't find it anywhere. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright so i changed up the demographics part, we don't really need those blocks to represent how many men and women there are, it takes up space, i left it just as text and included 2 other censuses regarding the Kist people. You didn't include the fact that the Kists were marked as Chechen speakers in the 1886 census, i included that now. As for the 1926 census i reworded it because it sounded like the Pankisi Kists are Ingush (which we both know they aren't even though they were classified together with Ingush in 1 census). I also added the 1939 census where they were marked as Chechens. I'm not sure about the Matsiev source, i did a quick search and couldn't find that book. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would use secondary sources for the the mentioned censuses because they use the terminology in which Chechens equal to Chechens, Ingush and (sometimes) Bats. For example, in the 1926 census, Ingush are mentioned belonging to the "Chechen group". You came in and for example added info from the 1897 census (primary source) where the Kist dialect is mentioned as "Chechen", although you didn't note (or noted, but didn't give attention to it) that even Ingush language is listed as Chechen. I myself was careful with the 1897 source as to not claim Kists were indicated as Chechen because of the terminology. As per WP:RS, we should always rely on the secondary sources which are really needed here. That's why I used the two sources so that we for sure would know the Kists were mentioned as Ingush. And I added this information, not because I wanted to indicate Kists as Ingush (which you most likely thought and probably caused you adding censuses), but because I wanted to clear off the confusion which the census creates as we don't know which ones are the Ingush proper and which are the Kists. Lastly, I would appreciate if you would stop with the "we both know". Although I hold the view of point that they are Chechen and Ingush, I don't enforce my point of view on others. Chechen and Ingush teips like Melkhiy and others formed the Kist ethnic group as you know yourself. I will add corresponding tags to the paragraphs that you added. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping the article tidy and consistent, please learn already the sfn template and don't just add the links as a source. Instructions:

1. Add Cite (* {{Cite book|last=|first=|year=|url=|title=|trans-title=|language=ru|location=|publisher=|pages=1–}} (this is the cite template I typically use)) in the section "Bibliography" (usually the section is all the way down in the article).

2. Now in the article, when you try to cite the source, you add this sfn template {{sfn|last name/names of the author/authors, if no author, then editor's/editors' last name/names|here year|p= or pp=/page= or pages=}}.

3. Lastly an example for you. Hope this helps you:

"Krupnov believed Zaur was built on by a representative from Malsagov family, while Akhriev believed it was built by a representative from the Dolgiev family instead".

=== References ===

=== Bibliography ===

• Крупнов, Е. И. (1971). Средневековая Ингушетия [Medieval Ingushetia] (in Russian). Москва: Наука. pp. 1–211.

-- WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

One of your sources (Tsutsiev) already notes that the 1897 source marks Kistins as "Chechen or Kist speaking" like my source also claims. I don't see the issue of adding censuses without secondary sources, you and me have done it before several times on articles such as Orstkhoy and its villages like Meredzhi etc. I don't see the problem in this, although i would like to see the page where Ingush and Kists are grouped as Chechens in the 1926 census, this has to be included in my opinion. Especially when it comes to an article regarding a Chechen subethnos. You shouldn't theorize on what caused my intervention in this article, you created a demographic section where there was none before and you added 2 censuses one which grouped Pankisi Kists with Ingush (while not including context like native languge) and one (1897) which you didn't elaborate on regarding the Chechen aspect (which your secondary source Tsutsiev elaborated on). Nor did you include later censuses that marked Kist people as Chechens (such as 1939), due to that my intervention is very simple. I don't know what your views are on this, i assumed you also knew the Pankisi Kists are Chechens because previously you deleted texts involving Ingush Kists in this article while claiming "These are Ingush Kists not Chechen Kists", here that does imply you considered the Pankisi Kists to be Chechen so i think my "we both know" comment was fair. Regarding Melkhiy teip, there has been no reliable ethnographic study that has ever considered them Ingush, from Zimmerman to Plaetchke to Volkova all who were in Malkhist and did ethnographic work considered them Chechens, Volkova for example noted that Ingush considered Melhi to be closer to Chechens. This is a different topic though so we don't need to expand on it here. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I only added the censuses in Orstkhoy article after you did, because I thought it would be difficult to explain to you why we should use secondary sources. Now look what Tsutsiev says about both your and mine censuses: "A majority of Karabulaks (Orstkhoi) were expelled to the Ottoman Empire in 1865. The remainder are included among Chechens and Ingush in the censuses." So this is the reason according to Tsutsiev (secondary source) that in the censuses, for example, Meredzhi is fully Chechen or Dattykh is fully Ingush. Do you now understand why I suggest using secondary sources? The censuses similarly can include Ingush population as Chechen because this is the terminology of that time, in these situations secondary sources help us understand. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

If you find secondary reliable sources that go into more detail regarding a specific census then go ahead and add, i'm not arguing against it but it still doesn't explain why you didn't follow your own advice and add secondary source (Tsutsiev) that elaborated on 1897 census where he mentioned they spoke Chechen. After all it's a secondary source you included, i don't want to imply you did it in bad faith, i would like to imagine that we can build a Chechen-Ingush encyclopedia without always coming at odds so i'm not accusing you of anything. Just for future edits please give the same weight to the Chechen aspect as you're giving the Ingush aspect especially when it comes to matters that are closer to the Chechen sphere. Anyways i think we are done with this topic for now. Goddard2000 (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)