![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
As dab explained really well above, this article is to be split. Sbasturk ( talk) 05:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
As dab explained really well above, this article is to be split. Sbasturk ( talk) 05:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)