Talk:Kists (ethnonym)

Name of the article

Товболатов perhaps it's better for the article to be renamed as "Kists/Kistins (ethnonym)" to not cause confusion with the modern day Kists that live in Georgia? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123 Muqale Hello, i propose we change up this article a bit because as of now it looks very Ingush-centered. I didn't know this page existed until now, i have some problems with it:

1. First of all, "In Russian sources of the XVIII century the ethnonym «Kists» often referred exclusively to the Ingush people, and extended to all Nakh societies" what is this based on exactly? Kists were most certainly not exclusively referred to as Ingush people, not in the XVIII century either. In fact all Nakh peoples were referred to as Kist as is even attested in the last section of this article from Guildenshtedt's work.

2. History section is lacking some sources, it is noteworthy that the very first Russian source that mentioned "Kist" was in 1665 by a Georgian ambassador who mentioned the "Kistichant" between the city of Chechan and Tusheti. This is in fact in modern Chechnya and could be called the "nearby Kists" of the later Russian sources. Here is the source: https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Kavkaz/XVI/Russ_Chech_otn/101-120/114.htm

Also we should mention Armenians who mentioned the "Xistk" that have been theorized to have been Kists in the 9th century.

3. Maps, there are too many of them, We should stick to 1 or 2. We can decide here which ones.

4. Fyappiy (Vyappiy), does this need to be here? there were more teips than Fyappi that have been referred to as Kist, it seems unnecessary that make a section on 1 specific teip no? Goddard2000 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As'salamu aleikum @Goddard2000

The Ingush are mostly excluded from the Kist people page, and therefore this article should exist.

1. Actually this was my edit. Due to the fact that, in the 18th century the Ingush actually became a part of Russia and in the treaty of 1770 under the name "we the Kistin nation", with the names of the 24 elders of the 24 villages. This is why I added, or to all Nakh peoples..

2. This is not the first Russian source, because several Georgian reports in 17th century in Greek alphabets were also translated to Russian, and specificially referred to the Kisti near the Georgian-Military Road (see E.Kusheva's work), though you source is also a valid one.

3. The first version of this article was mainly Chechen, so other maps were added. We can discuss so that there is an even amount.

4. The Fyappy is specifically known from the 18th tot the 20th century as the Kistin society. I believe this by the user who created this article because it it also present in the Russian version. @WikiEditor1234567123 what do you think of this? Muqale (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

First of all assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh Goddard2000 and Muqale. I don't quite agree that the page is Ingush centered, I think it looks fine. It's to good mention Fyappiy as they have been mentioned as Kists and exclusively mentioned as Nearby Kists during the 18-20th centuries. Fyappiy aren't a taïp, they are a large Ingush society with many taïps and surnames. Regarding your other points, I think Muqale has already answered them and I'm of same opinion with him. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Waaleykum Salam to you both, the Kist people page mostly refers to modern Kists in Pankisi which are all Chechens. In my opinion though, we should combine this article into that one and explain only Chechens in Pankisi are referred to today as Kist while historically it was used for both nations. It seems a bit unnecessary to have 2 pages on Kists.

1. Muqale i don't understand how this explains how Kist were sometimes exclusively referred to only Ingush? Many authors during this period referred to Chechens as Kists too, even in this very article on the last part you have Guildenstedt's source which implies all Nakh are Kists. This is what i mean by "Ingush-centered". We should remove that part especially since it has no source backing it.

2. I believe it is the first source, i can't find any other source earlier than 1665 from Russians, as for the "Greek alphabet" one i know Kusheva mentioned it but she didn't mention a date as far as i know. Could you provide a more detailed source? or a quote?

3. Fair enough, i think we should pick 1 that Ingush agrees on and 1 that Chechens agree on. We can keep the "Kistins on the map of Little Chechnya (1847)" one for Chechens and remove the others. You and Wikieditor can agree on one 1 from your part. Do you agree?

4. It's a bit odd to claim Fyappi aren't a teip, i have heard otherwise but fair enough. However i do think we should create a new section named "Kist societies" and add Fyappi part in that section, if anyone else wants to add other teips like Zumsoi, Nashkhoi in that section then it would be great too. Goddard2000 (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Read my reply to the first point again, because I did not write exclusively. Also Krupnov stated that the most ancient mention of the Kistins is almost always linked to the Armkhi river.

2. In Teimuraz I report of 1635: he mentioned nations that are present in the Darial Gorge, among these he mentions Kisti. ("В послании царю Михаилу Романову кахетинский царь Теймураз I писал, что около Каракланова (Дарьяла) и черкесских мурз пребывают кисти, с овсами...") (Kusheva, Volkova, Krupnov, and others mention this)

3. (TBD)

4. Fyappiy most definitely is not a teip, it is a society of clans and teips grouped together.

Also I do not agree on your view on this page, because a brief mention of the historical meaning of etnhonym on the Pankisi-Kists page does not inform the reader enough, because when the enthonym "Kist" is mentioned in any other article they automathically get linked to the Pankisi Kists, this is why many Chechens today still assume the Ingush are trying to make it seem that the Pankisi Kists are Ingush, when we have big historical claim on the name as well, if not a bit more. Muqale (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

1. This is the quote "In Russian sources of the XVIII century the ethnonym «Kists» often referred exclusively to the Ingush people, and extended to all Nakh societies."

If you are saying that this was not your edit then alright, what i'm saying though is that we should remove it since "Kists" were most definitely not often referred exclusively to the Ingush people. Do you agree?

2. This is good but can you link a source for only the letter itself? if there even is one i mean. Like the source i posted, it would be interesting to chronologically write them down. Volkova also mentions another letter from Teimuraz I period that implied Kist land is above Tusheti: "В другом письме он указывал, что из Грузию в Россию есть дорога через землю кистинов, но она небезопасна и проходит через Тушетию. На пути лежат снега, которые исчезают только летом."

I know that Georgian Monarchs used to write in Greek and Persian during this time which is why i claimed the first Russian source that mentioned Kists implied they were from Chechnya.

3. Alright

4. I disagree but no matter, we can keep it as it is then.

Georgians decided to name the Pankisi Chechens "Kist", they were the originators of this etnonym and they only continued to refer to the Pankisi Chechens as Kist. It is important to specify the modern Kists as Chechens because that is the fact of the matter regardless if you think Ingush deserves the ethnonym more than Chechens which i obviously disagree with. Regarding the Kist-Kistin 2 pages that was only my opinion, i am not trying to remove this article so we don't need to continue on this matter. Goddard2000 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

1. I corrected the quote. This is agreed on.

2. Yes I am aware of the other sources. If you really want to chronically list them. Then this can be discussed. Will need to collect them.

3. The fact that the Pankisi Kists today are mostly called Kists is not enough to claim the ethnonym because these teips migrated only in the 19th century to Pankisi, while the enthonym was used to refer to the Ingush and others Nakh tribes much earlier. And to be honest , even up until the 90's there were several instances were Georgians would still use the name Kists to refer to the Ingush: see here Muqale (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Glad we could agree on the first point, second & third point i understand but again i don't have an issue with this article existing, and i understand the issue you have with the Kist people page. You can't disagree though that the use of the Kist term has caused some Ingush to claim the Pankisi Kists as Ingush due to misunderstanding. No matter though, you already agreed with me and we came to a consensus on the maps & "exclusively" part of this article. Goddard2000 (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree and your last phrase regarding the Pankisi Kists, though it works both ways: because of the Pankisi Kists some Chechens nowadays think the term historical Kists only applies to Chechens. Muqale (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah i agree, i am satisfied with the current state of the article so we don't need to continue here. I'm glad we could come to a consensus here. Goddard2000 (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Name of the article

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh Muqale and Goddard2000, perhaps we should change the name of this article to something like "Kists (ethnonym)"? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Waaleykum Salam, yeah i don't mind that. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Readability

Was this google translated or something? The history section is unreadable 212.58.114.225 (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)