Talk:Mythology of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples

help!

need to deal with the problem of idoelogical interpretations of Gesar and including things such as Tengriism as a real, rather than presently politicized ideology. The discussion below about the move is far more developed and practical in terms of knowledge of the actual issues, while nonsense such as describing Geser as a religious figure promoting Tengriism is so far into the realm of fantasy that I hesitate to touch this page.

Move

There is no such thing as "Altaic mythology", so I suggest we avoid the term. That is, there is no mythology that is shared by the Turks, Mongols, Tungus, Koreans, and Japanese that is not also shared by many non-Altaic peoples of Asia. This is just another pointless reification of a linguistic construct, and a debatable one at that. The Turks and Mongols, however, have a lot in common in their mythology, and that is what this article is about. kwami (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for using the talkpage, but the point is that you should discuss first, move later, especially after you have been reverted.

The problem with your move is that the term "Turco-Mongol" is reserved for the Turco-Mongol empire during the Middle Ages, while this article intends to encompass contemporary mythology too, not just the 13th to 15th centuries. Especially in English, there is a difference between "Mongol" and "Mongolian", the former referring to the medieval people exclusively. "Altaic" is intended as a linguistic grouping, not as a reference to the Altai mountains. This isn't a reification, because myths aren't any more material than languages, and indeed inextricably tied to the language transporting them. I appreciate your point to the extent that "Altaic pottery" or "Indo-European hairstyles" would arguably be "reifications of linguistic constructs". I have moved the article to an accurate but awkward title for the moment, but I strongly suggest moving it back to the original title, paralleling Uralic mythology etc. It is undisputed that in principle Mongolian mythology and Turkic mythology are two separate topics. The only reason for which they are currently treated under a single title is lack of material that would allow a {{split}}. --dab (𒁳) 16:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Good move. We can move again if we think of a more concise title.

Turkic and Mongol cultures have a lot of commonalities due to their long interaction, regardless of whether the languages are related. I doubt that "Turkic mythology" or "Mongolian mythology" outside this wider cultural area are coherent concepts, so separate articles may not be advisable, but I may be wrong there. My point, for "Uralic mythology" too, is that the validity of a cultural phenomenon should not depend on the validity of a linguistic proposal. I like your "Indo-European hairstyles" concept. For "Altaic mythology" to be a valid concept, it should remain valid even if the Altaic theory proves to be false. It would be different if we could reconstruct the mythology of the proto-Altaic (or Uralic) people and trace its influence in the modern peoples today, or if Altaic were a Sprachbund that entailed a similar Kulturbund with a common mythology. That would be a fascinating article, but we have no idea if it's even possible. I see this kind of ill-conceived nonsense all over Wikipedia—and unfortunately in much of the literature as well—where our interpretation of history or archeology depends on the latest proposal in linguistics, as if when that proposal is abandoned the historical and archaeological records somehow change in as well. Could you imagine biologists basing their descriptions of morphology on the latest cladistics, rather than basing cladistics on morphology? Linguists complain about this shortcut to doing good history or anthropology. It may suggest interesting things to investigate (just as genetic cladistics may give insights into morphology), but when simply accepted without verification, it creates only the illusion of knowledge. kwami (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Split the Page

As dab explained really well above, this article is to be split. Sbasturk (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2012 (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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No action now. There appears to be support for a split and discussion on that should continue. If and when that's done I'll be happy to perform the move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Mythology of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples → Turkic mythology – This article is to be split as follow: Turkic mythology and Mongolian mythology. The content for both subjects is different although of course there are some similarities. There are also many other similarities between other mythologies as well as I mentioned in the article page. Still these are two separate topics. Please read the comment of dab above as well. After the move, we should create a new article for Mongolian mythology and move its content from here to the new article as well although it doesn't have much material in its section. --Relisted Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Sbasturk (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with your sentiments (as do other users in sections above, apparently). I also agree that, with a split, the edit history should remain with Turkic mythology since that content is more substantial. However, execute the split first, and then move the articles. My support for this move is contingent on that. By the way, for anyone interested, the article started at Mongol mythology, was moved on the same day by its creator to Altaic mythology, bounced around as Altaic mythology and Turco-Mongol mythology a couple of times before settling at its present title in 2009. Note the "Turkic mythology" has an edit history that predates this article. If this move goes forward, the closing admin might want to histmerge this. —  AjaxSmack  18:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. You're right. Specially the subject of Ges'r is a common thing in Turkic (Turkish: Gezer Han), Mongol, Tibetan and Tungus mythology. It's one of the common values. Currently only Mongol section of the page contains this topic but could be inserted into the Turkic sectin as well. Sbasturk (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose why not just start new edit histories? I don't see a particular reason to attach the history of the combined topic to one or other new articles, since this contains the history of both. Just add {{copied}} attribution templates to both new talk pages. This current name would contain the history of the topic when it was combined in one place, at a title that represents the combined nature of the coverage. From the beginning of the article's history, it clearly shows coverage of both of the topics that this article would be split ot. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support Splitting is a good idea except that the new article will lack a proper history page. But if the creator starts the new article with his/her sources, there'll be no such problem. (I already called Dbachmann, but I am afraid Dbachmann doesn't seem to be active recently) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting is followed, then there should be no problem. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• quoting self: It is undisputed that in principle Mongolian mythology and Turkic mythology are two separate topics. The only reason for which they are currently treated under a single title is lack of material We still do not have anywhere near sufficient material here. Could people please invest time into researching the actual topic instead of worrying over article structure? --dab (𒁳) 14:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Split first -- That is clearly right. When the Mongolian mythology has been removed, the rename will be uncontroversial. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Isn't there an enough consensus here to split the article? Just because Mongol mythology has not enough material for its own page, Turkic mythology has to be together with it.. I have no understanding for that.. Sbasturk (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There's support for a split, but splitting off the Mongolian content doesn't require a move or other admin action right now. When a split is completed I or another admin can take care of the necessary moves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just refer Mongolian content, but let this be Mythology of the Turkic peoples. Otherwise it is propagate Pan-Turansim. 77.3.98.132 (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Why was Altaic mythologies merged into this page?

@User:Kwamikagami: Why did you decide to merge this page (which was formerly a disambiguation page) into this page, which only discusses the mythologies of the Turkic and Mongolic peoples, instead of the Altaic peoples as a whole? I think the page would have been less misleading if it had been left as a disambiguation page, instead of being converted to a redirect page. Jarble (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a dab, it was a stub for a non-existent topic. There's no such thing as the "Altaic people", and certainly no such thing as "Altaic mythology". The Turkic and Mongolian people do have a lot in common, though I'm not sure they have an exclusive mythology either. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes the article should be split into Turkic and Mongol Mythology. I can't undestand why they are together even if they have some common things. Turkic Mythology has also many other common things with Aegean and Anatolian mythologies (Greek and Hittite). Why aren't they all together? Lets split the article. Sbasturk (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT, Turkic mythology has nothing to do w Aegean or Anatolian (how would Aegean mythology have gotten to Mongolia?), so that wouldn't be reason to split. — kwami (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)