The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Kyrgyz Confederation

Kyrgyz Confederation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A new state invented by the Foggy Kub participant, all sources in the article (except for the encyclopedia "Kyrgyzstan", which vaguely characterizes the union of tribes as a state entity, while not mentioning the term Kyrgyz confederation) do not mention the term Kyrgyz confederation in their sources, the user invented the currency, capital and even the official language of lmao. Even if you find something remotely similar to the consensus in academic science, then this article definitely deserves to be deleted as a hoax. The book by Barbara A. West does not mention at all that the Kyrgyz language was official in the "Kyrgyz confederation", there is just a simplified history of the Kyrgyz as tribes in the middle of the Altai and Tien Shan, this is to understand the full scale of the hoax. And yes, the name Dasht-i-Kyrgyz does not exist. Kazman322 ( talk) 12:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Kazman322 ( talk) 12:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Firstly, the article was NOT created by me, and secondly, the name "Dasht-i Kyrgyz" is mentioned in this source: [1]. The language is mentioned in this source - [2]. Foggy kub ( talk) 12:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• • The first source refers to the territory, not the state, in the second source there is no confirmation of the existence of the Kyrgyz Confederation. Kazman322 ( talk) 13:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    • «in the early 20s of the 16th century, Muhammad-Kyrgyz, whom many Kyrgyz scientists, following O. Karaev, recognize as the first leader of the Kyrgyz tribal union», everything is mentioned directly. Foggy kub ( talk) 13:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
      • About "Dast-i-Kyrgyz". Cited anonymous source of 1675/76 contains the only mention of the phrase "Dast-i-Kyrgyz": "And if any of you get to Tashkent, tell Ubaid Khan that I have gone towards Dasht-i Baglan and Dasht-i Kyrgyz". But let's read the following phrase of the source: "One Kyzylbash caught one Uzbek fellow of three to four hundred Uzbeks who scattered across the Steppe, and brought him to Bayram Khan. During the interrogation, he said: "Muhammad-Timur Khan and Abu Sa'id Khan went towards the fortresses of Baglan and Kyrgyz". Therefore, the term "Dasht-i", in this context, does not mean "state", but only the territory around a particular fortress, the fortress area. That is why attributing "Dasht-i Kyrgyz" the meaning of the "name of the state" to this phrase is an original study, which is based on an arbitrary false interpretation of a single mention in a single medieval source. It is important for us that a number of respected reputable modern historical sources analyze the subject of the article, interpret it exactly as described in the article, name the subject of the article exactly as it is done in Wikipedia. Otherwise, such a Wikipedia article will be an original study based on a biased selection and false interpretation of sources. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 19:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
        • "Dasht-i Kyrgyz" is not a fortress, but the name of the state, this is hinted at by the title of the head of the Kyrgyz "Padishah", which means "ruler, king." The article also mentions the union of Kyrgyz tribes under the beginning of Muhammad Kyrgyz (Tagai Biy). Foggy kub ( talk) 19:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
          • You should not deliberately distort my statements, I was talking about "the territory around a particular fortress, the fortress area", but not a "fortress". In the text to which you refer, the author of the text clearly shows that they are talking about the same place, he calls it alternately "the area of fortresses", then "fortresses". And one more thing: it is impossible to refer to medieval primary sources, because, firstly, one should not refer to primary sources at all, and secondly, the interpretation of medieval sources is not allowed to be made by the Wikipedians themselves, this is an unacceptable original research. To interpret the meaning of medieval primary sources can only be made by recognized experts, not by Wikipedians. And one more important point: in general, it is impossible to introduce into Wikipedia something that is mentioned only 1 time in the world historical literature but only in 1 anonymous medieval source, which became available to science only in 2012. We should not be interested in medieval primary sources at all, only and exclusively the opinions of modern recognized experts, who have studied and described the subject of the article in detail in their scientific publications, are important to us. Let us recall the story told by the quoted source: the troops of the Iraqi Kyzylbash and Samarkand Chagatai attacked the Baghlan fortress in Afghanistan. This is the same Baghlan that is mentioned in the text as Dasht-i Baghlan. However, in the part where the siege of the Baghlan fortress is described, the area around the fortress is called "this vilayat". That is, Dasht-i Baghlan and the area around the Baghlan fortress (vilayat) it's the same thing. And now let's remember about the "Kyrgyz fortress", which is mentioned in the text first as "Dasht-i Kyrgyz", then "Kyrgyz fortress". At the same time, from the context, what I wrote earlier, it is obvious that the source is talking about the same place. The same fortress in the Kyrgyz Mountains was mentioned when "The Kyrgyz received this message just at the moment when, having loaded provisions on pack animals, they were already sending it to the Kyzylbash camp. They stopped the caravan with food, and hid themselves in the fortress."
          • So, there is your interpretation, there is my interpretation. You're an dilettante, I'm an dilettante too. Neither your interpretation nor mine can be used in the article, isn't it? After all, the rules categorically forbid using of dilettante's interpretations of medieval primary sources. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 08:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
            • Speaking about the sources, you, as I understand it, have not checked the other sources that I have cited, please read them and only then write something about this. Foggy kub ( talk) 08:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
              • So, I conclude, we no longer consider valid your argument that the anonymous medieval source you cited allegedly "confirms" the existence of a state called Desht-i-Kyrgyz, isn't it? Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 11:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
                • Maybe the name is not right, but the state existed and this is confirmed by my sources, which I have given below. Foggy kub ( talk) 11:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
                  • Ok, the name "Desht-i-Kyrgyz" is not correct. Let's gradually, step by step, deal with other arguments. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 21:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I found a source where everything is written in direct words [3]. Foggy kub ( talk) 13:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Ok, let's start analyzing the source you have given "Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia" © 2003 Paul Georg Geiss. Geiss actually mentions "Kyrgyz confederations" many times, and not a single "Kyrgyz confederation". Why? At p. 36 Geiss mentions: "Large Kyrgyz plemias like the Bugu, Sary Bagysh, Solto, Adigine or Saruu were tribal confederacies rather than tribes, since their composition changed." And now let's look at page 98, which you specified as "a source where everything is written in direct words". What is the name of this chapter? "Kyrgyz confederacies". One more time again: not "confederation" but "confederacies", plural form, isn't it?
    • The author begins by quoting a Chinese source from 1770, this source states that 220 years before (in 1550) "Two wings were formed, a northern and a southern one…. Each of these was internally divided into branches." Therefore, the Chinese source does not speak of a single "state" in the form of a "Kyrgyz confederation", but only that the Kyrgyz people did not unite, but, on the contrary, divided into two larger "wings", which were internally fragmented into many "branches". So, no unity, but partition and division. Why? Citation: "when the Khanate of Mughulistan declined, mountainous tribesmen regained their political independence and restructured their political affiliations". The author points out that "The division between a northern and a southern wing would also corresponded to the Kyrgyz confederative wings Ong Kanat (right wing) and Sol Kanat (left wing) which nomadised in northern and southern Kyrgyzstan." But were these "wings" solid "confederations" of Kyrgyz people, even if they were two different ones? No, because the author emphasizes that: "This loose confederation was not the only political alliance involving Kyrgyz, since Kyrgyz tribes sometimes formed military alliances with Kazakh tribes as well." And also "tribal territories were newly divided among tribes and tribal federations which also included considerable Mongol groups". Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 12:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Perhaps you are right, the source is not suitable, but I found a new source that mentions an independent state in the 15-16 centuries: [4]. Foggy kub ( talk) 14:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
        • "Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia" © 2003 Paul Georg Geiss IS a suitable source regarding the history of the Kyrgyz people. But this source does not support your private point of view, it refutes it. It is forbidden in Wikipedia to tendentiously select only those sources that can somehow support the private point of view of the Wikipedia editor (the author of the article). On the contrary, this Wikipedia editor should present all solid sources, including those that contradict this private point of view and who is trying to drag into Wikipedia. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 23:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Obviously Bertil Nygren is a political scientist and not an ethnographer, and this term is just a very general concept. Kazman322 ( talk) 15:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
        • and what do you mean by that? That the source is not reliable? Foggy kub ( talk) 16:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
          • You are not looking for those specialized sources that consider in detail and argumentatively the history of the Kyrgyz people in the XV-XVI centuries, but in general any source that (as in this case) is dedicated to the XXI century Putin era, but the "independent state of the Kyrgyz people" in the XV-XVI centuries mentions only once with a single phrase. Bertil Nygren simply reproduces something that he once heard somewhere, most likely in non-academic Kyrgyz sources. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 23:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
            • I don’t see the meaning in your words, you say that the source is AUTHORITIVE, and this authoritative source mentions the state of the Kyrgyz, so what is the question? You deviate from the very essence of the discussion, about the existence of the state (which was, I indicated the sources). Foggy kub ( talk) 09:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply
              • • One more time: You are looking for any sources at all that at least mentioned the phrase you are interested in. You don't care about the credibility of these sources, you only care about mentioning a combination of words. But you should look for authoritative academic and neutral sources that consider in detail the period of the history of the Kyrgyz people that interests you. On the contrary, you simply ignore, authoritative academic sources that completely contradict your private point of view, do not even mention these sources. But you must be neutral and you cannot tendentiously select only those sources that work for your personal idea, and the rest of the sources, even if they are of the highest authority, which deny your private idea, simply ignore. This is prohibited by the rules. It is strictly forbidden. Wikipedia is obliged to be neutral, and therefore, if the encyclopedia Britannica does not mention the subject of your article at all, then (1) You are obliged to write about it in the article and (2) this is a powerful signal that the subject of the article is questionable, since even the Britannica (or "Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia" © 2003 Paul Georg Geiss) does not know about it. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 00:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
                • The authoritative source ("Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia" © 2003 Paul Georg Geiss) does not mention any "independent Kyrgyz state". I remind you that you cited this source as proof of the existence of the phrase "Kyrgyz confederation", didn't you? I have shown that the meaning of the term in this source is the opposite: (1) the author of the source (Geiss) says that even the Kyrgyz tribes were loose (that is, "confederations") and they could include at different times a different set of Kyrgyz or even non-Kyrgyz clans. Geiss, thus, emphasized not "monolithic unity", but just its complete absence. (2) Geiss used the concept of "Kyrgyz confederation" in order to characterize those parts into which the Kyrgyz people was divided, that is, into northern and southern Kyrgyz, each of these parts was characterized by the author as a "confederation" of tribes. Therefore, the author of the source did not use the concept of "Kyrgyz confederation" as the name of a common Kyrgyz state, but on the contrary, Geiss characterized the Kyrgyz tribes loose and unstable in their composition, as well as the disintegration of the Kyrgyz people into parts. Not a union, not unity, not a state, but a disintegration into loose parts. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 09:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
              • The main problem is that you first invent the state, and only then you start looking for its mention in every hole. Kazman322 ( talk) 11:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply
                • Your words = emptiness, you also spoke about the Kyrgyz Khanate, but what is the result? The article has been preserved and authoritative sources have been cited. Foggy kub ( talk) 13:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• • • I found another source confirming the existence of the Kyrgyz state in 1514 (as written in the article): [5]. Foggy kub ( talk) 14:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
      • in one of your articles it is written that the Kyrgyz khanate ceased to exist in 1514, that is, you yourself are confused in your own terms. Kazman322 ( talk) 15:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
        • judging by your words, then it is necessary to rename the article, since you no longer deny the existence of the article. Foggy kub ( talk) 16:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
          • You are again searching for any sources that would simply mention something that corresponds to your personal ideas about the subject of the article. In this case, you are referring to a certain "Indigenous Peoples: An Encyclopedia of Culture, History and Threats to Survival" (in 4 vol.) by Victoria R. Williams, she also wrote "Celebrating the Customs of life around the world: from the soul of a child for a funeral" (in 3 vol.) [6], "London: Geography, History, and Culture" [7] and also "Etiquette and Taboos around the World: A Geographic Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Customs" [8], "Weird Sports and Wacky Games around the World: From Buzkashi to Zorbing" [9], "Easy Travel Guide to Europe: Everything You Need to Know Before Traveling to Europe" (in 3 vol.) [10]. That is, the author of the source that you have chosen in support of your personal idea is not an academic scientist, the publishing house that published this book intended for a wide range of readers characterizes the author as an "independent writer and researcher". You, me, any of the Wikipedians, can be described as an "independent writer and researcher", right? In other words: the author of the source you found is an ordinary compiler that compiles huge (sometimes in several volumes) publications intended for commercial sale to ordinary people. These books are not any academic scientific works at all.
          • Byt let's look at the Encyclopedia Britannica, in the section "Early history of Kyrgyzstan". What is written there regarding the existence of an independent Kyrgyz state in the XVI century? Nothing, not a single word. Britannica does not know such a state. [11]
          • Now we see that normal academic sources do not know such an independent Kyrgyz state in the XVI century. I'm talking about "Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia" © 2003 by Paul Georg Geiss and the Encyclopedia Britannica. And you either attribute to the source you cited something that was not there (in the Geiss book) or, as is the case with Britannica, an academic encyclopedic source of the highest authority does not mention at all what you would like to have as the subject of the article. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 09:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply
            • By your logic, I don't have to do anything at all? I will and should look for any mention of the existence of this state, if the sources that I cited do not interest you (although they should), then what can you say about the encyclopedia "Kyrgyzstan" of 2001, which says about the united state of Tagay Biy? Foggy kub ( talk) 09:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply
            • Regarding this source, you have not answered whether it is authoritative or not. Judging by your activity, you think that you have already won, but you just wrote some off-topic words. If you write about it again, then I will understand that I won this discussion, thanks colleague! Foggy kub ( talk) 09:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply
              • Okay, I'll try to explain again. In Wikipedia, not at all any source that mentions the subject of the article is suitable for writing articles. Before writing articles, a Wikipedia editor should learn how to find sources. But not any sources, but authoritative ones in this subject area. The Wikipedia editor should analyze the author of the source for its compliance with the criteria of authority. The simplest approach is to analyze what the author has published. This allows us to better assess the nature of his work, to understand whether the author is a solid academic expert, or whether the author is a person who simply knows how to write, publish his works and earn money from it.
              • British author Victoria R. Williams wrote "Celebrating the Customs of life around the world: from the soul of a child for a funeral" (in 3 vol.) [12], "London: Geography, History, and Culture" [13] and also "Etiquette and Taboos around the World: A Geographic Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Customs" [14], "Weird Sports and Wacky Games around the World: From Buzkashi to Zorbing" [15], "Easy Travel Guide to Europe: Everything You Need to Know Before Traveling to Europe" (in 3 vol.) [16].
              • Can we consider the author of these popular collections of curious and funny facts, tourist guides to London and Europe, intended for a wide range of readers, to be a solid academic scientist? Can we compare the credibility of this Victoria R. Williams with Paul Georg Geiss, the author of "Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia"? Definitely no. We definitely cannot compare the authority of these two people. Williams is a regular compiler of interesting and funny facts, from which she compiles large (sometimes multi-volume) collections and guidebooks. Williams is not an expert on the medieval history of the Kyrgyz people. Victoria R. Williams is not an authority in this subject area. Finally, we do not analyze her books, we do not use them when writing articles on the history of the Kyrgyz people. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 19:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Sources confirming the existence of this state: [17], [18]p.350 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foggy kub ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I ask for the term KYRGYZ CONFEDERATION. You can't just make up a term from clippings about the Yenisei Kyrgyz and just book references. Kazman322 ( talk) 13:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    • You asked for the sources of the existence of the state of the 16-18 centuries, I cited them, please, before a stupid answer, read all the sources, thanks. Foggy kub ( talk) 13:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    • [19] P.176-179 It mentions the consolidation of the Kyrgyz tribes into a state with their own laws and principles. Foggy kub ( talk) 15:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Let's count this artistic work. Why do I say "artistic"? And how can one characterize the flight of imagination of an author who knows all the thoughts of a medieval figure? Citation (p. 175):

Tagai biy's life is full of dramatic events, battles related to the struggle for the freedom of the people. He realized that there was a very difficult path ahead, but as a man of strong political will, indomitable energy and with the inherent quality of foresight, he could not imagine his life without the sovereignty of his people. Tagai-biy believed first of all in the spirit of the people. He loved to listen to the storytellers Manaschi, being charged with their powerful energy.

• This is a fiery eulogy, not an academic scientific work. And no references to sources. Why? Because there can be no such links to sources. The author invented all this himself, this is the flight of his artistic imagination. For the author did not get into Tagai-biy's head, did not stand next to him, did not hear his words. He, the author, had nowhere to find out, since no historical sources that would tell about it have been preserved.
• But back to your source. This is what this source writes about Muhammad-Kyrgyz (p. 177):

in 1517, Muhammad-Kyrgyz became the ruler of the Kyrgyz and the remnants of the Mongolian and Turkic tribes of the Semirechye, Issyk-Kul basin and the Kochkor Valley

• Even your highly artistic source admits that Mohammed-Kyrgyz in fakt was not at all a "unifier of the Kyrgyz people into a single Kyrgyz state," but created a conglomerate of Mongolian, Kyrgyz and other Turkic tribes. Most of this conglomerate was outside the modern territory of Kyrgyzstan, while the Kyrgyz themselves, who were part of this conglomerate, did not include the southern Kyrgyz at all (the "left wing"). The territory of the tribal conglomerate created by Muhammad-Kyrgyz covered only (let me remind you) Issyk-Kul, Kochkor and Semirechye. That is, the modern territories of the Chu and Issyk-Kul oblasts, and from the Naryn oblast only the Kochkor district. The rest of modern Kyrgyzstan was outside of its tribal conglomerate: Talas oblast, Jalal-Abad oblast, Osh oblast, Batken oblast and the main part of Naryn oblast. The author of your source admits all this, but then the flight of his imagination is unstoppable:

"He actively contributed to strengthening the process of consolidation of Kyrgyz clans and tribes, the growth of ethnic consciousness among the Kyrgyz, strengthened the unification of the "right" and "left" wings of the Kyrgyz tribes."

• After all, in fact, Muhammad-Kyrgyz divided the Kyrgyz people: he included a minor part of the Kyrgyz people in a multi-tribal conglomerate, the bulk of whose territory and population were not Kyrgyz. At the same time, the main part of the Kyrgyz people was outside this multi-tribal formation.
• Your source writes that the multi-tribal conglomerate of Muhammad-Kyrgyz entered into an "alliance" with the Kazakh Khanate allegedly "to fight the Mongols," but the "ally" used Muhammad-Kyrgyz for war with... the Sheibanids:

Muhammad-Kyrgyz entered into an alliance with the Kazakh Khanate as the most reliable ally in the fight against Mongol expansion. The Kyrgyz took an active part in the struggle against the Sheibanids, who sought to seize the Syrdarya cities.

• That is why the warriors of Muhammad-Kyrgyz did not fight "shoulder to shoulder" against the Mongols, but the Kazakhs used Muhammad-Kyrgyz to attack the cities of Turkestan and Tashkent.
• But let's read your source again. Here is what your source writes about what the political structure of the Kyrgyz was at that time (p. 178):

At the head of each wing was the supreme biy (chonbiy). He was elected annually from among the senior biys – rulers of tribal associations. Not having a significant and permanent military force, he actually had no real power over the senior biy − rulers of tribal associations, and large feudal lords of tribes. Consequently, the position of the supreme biy was of a formal nature and served as a symbol of the unity of all the tribes of a particular wing.

• Now your source has explained everything to us: there were no "rulers" even at the level of the "wing", the so called "supreme biy" had no real power over the tribes that are part of the "wing", he (according to your source) was only a "symbolic figure" who had no real power.
• Thus, your source completely denies the idea of the alleged existence of a "single Kyrgyz state" of Tagai-biy (Muhammad-Kyrgyz). He only says that Muhammad-Kyrgyz included several northern Kyrgyz tribes in a multi-tribal confederation, which also included Mongolian and other "Turkic" tribes. The vast majority of Kyrgyz tribes were outside this multi-tribal formation of Muhammad-Kyrgyz. Moreover, your source writes that the political structure of the Kyrgyz people at that time, in principle, did not allow a single all-Kyrgyz government to exist, because tribal leaders and only they had full power, and even the "supreme biy" of each of the "wings" was not a ruler, but was only a symbolic figure without any real power. Have you even read the source you are referring to? After all, the source has never used the term "confederation", much less "state" in relation to the formation that Muhammad-Kyrgyz created. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 16:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• The same source with another page 140, the country "Kyrgyz" is mentioned here: [20]. Foggy kub ( talk) 15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Your source is the "The Tarikh-i-rashidi: A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia" work by a medieval Uighur general and poet Mirza Muhammad Haidar, it was written in 1543. Therefore, this is the primary medieval text. Such documents are the primary information for historians, they cannot be used directly for writing articles. Why? Because medieval primary sources are able to be correctly understood and interpreted only by authoritative experts in this subject area, and not by simple amateur Wikipedia editors like you or me. In any case, the medieval author uses the phrase "Kirghiz country" not to denote an independent Kyrgyz state, but the area where the Kyrgyz people lives. At the same time (have you read the source you are referring to?) on the same page 140, where the author mentions the "Kirghiz country" as a single possession with Mogulistan: "he begged the Khan to give Moghulistan and the Kirghiz country to Baba Sultan". That's why your reference to the medieval primary source is invalid: (1) you (and me too) cannot interpret medieval primary sources yourself, because only recognized experts in this field of science can do this (2) this primary medieval source uses the phrase "Kirghiz country" not as a designation of an independent Kyrgyz state, but as the habitat of the Kyrgyz people. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 23:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• [21] "Mohammed Kyrgyz created an independent Kyrgyz state". Foggy kub ( talk) 15:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• So, the author of this source is Doctor of Historical Sciences Dzholdoshbai Malabaevich Malabaev. Looks attractive, doesn't it? But in what area of history is this Dr. Malabaev? We'll find out now. He had a higher education: he graduated from the Higher Party School under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1954. That is, he received a higher communist education during the period of Stalinism. In 1962 he defended his PhD thesis "The struggle of the Kyrgyz Communist Party for the strengthening of the Soviets (1924-1929)", in 1970 he defended his doctoral thesis "Strengthening of the Soviets of Kyrgyzstan during the construction of socialism, 1917-1937". But perhaps this specialist in the history of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan and the strengthening of socialism and Soviet power subsequently retrained to medieval history? No, in 1985 he wrote the book "The Revolutionary Committees of Kyrgyzstan (1918-1923)". That is, from the early 1950s and at least until the mid-1980s, he remained faithful to his theme - the history of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan in the XX century.
• But who was Dr. Malabaev by profession? Would you think that he was a historian (even of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan)? No, Malabayev was a high-ranking figure of the communist repressive apparatus of Kyrgyzstan. He joined the communist Stalinist repressive apparatus in 1939, he studied for 2 years at the KGB special school in Almaty (1939-40) and after graduation became an investigating officer of the KGB, in 1947-49 he graduated from the KGB Special Higher School in Moscow, after which he became the head of the KGB of the Talas oblast (province) of Kyrgyzstan, in 1951, for his successful service in the KGB, the Stalinist regime awarded him the Order of the Badge of Honor, after which he became Deputy Minister of the KGB of Kyrgyzstan. Malabaev served in the KGB for exactly 20 years (he served Stalin, served Khrushchev) and ended his highly successful service in the high post of Deputy Minister of the KGB of the Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic. And only after he finished his service in the KGB, he became... That's right, the KGB colonel became a historian of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 14:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• [22] "Under Mohammed Kyrgyz, the Kyrgyz tribes for the first time acted as an independent state." Foggy kub ( talk) 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• • Hi Kazman322, I can't wait for your answer to the arguments, and the book, as well as your friend Bogomolov.PL, “I can’t answer without emotions”, is this your envy?)☺️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriswift911 ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I don't have any "friends" on Wikipedia. This is the first. Secondly, I do not know who Kazman322 is, I do not know anything about him (or her) at all. And that's right. Third, stop trying to figure out who is whose friend. This is unacceptable. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 21:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• [23] "Mohammed Kyrgyz ruled the Kyrgyz Khanate until the end of his life. Under him, the ethno-political structure of the Kyrgyz was finally formed ...". Foggy kub ( talk) 06:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete, alright, whether it was due to an honest misreading of sources, an attempt to purvey a WP:FRINGE theory or just a straight up hoax, it is abundantly clear that this supposed “Kyrgyz Confederation” did not exist and that no serious sources have discussed the possibility of its existence, and therefore it obviously does not pass GNG. Devonian Wombat ( talk)
  • Let me ask you, did you at least look at the sources in the article and those that I cited? One source ( [24]) speaks of the state of the Kyrgyz, which was founded in 1514. Also in the article there is a source from the encyclopedia of Kyrgyzstan, which mentions the united state of Tagay-biya ( [25] p.125–126). Before an unreasonable answer, I ask you to at least open and analyze. Foggy kub ( talk) 09:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Draftify Not sure whether this is more an issue of a neologism being used as a title ("The Kyrgyz Confederation" proper noun does not appear to exist) or WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH. A fair amount of work has gone into this article though so I would like to let the authors work on this with close attention to WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and see if it passes review in the future. —DIYeditor ( talk) 23:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 01:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete and do not draftify. This is clearly OR and no amount of wrangling with it in draft space can overcome that. Mccapra ( talk) 09:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete outright, and perhaps also salt, this piece of invention is not now and never will be notable. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 20:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• I found new, more authoritative sources that mention this state: [26] (p.124—127), [27] ("History of the Kirghiz SSR", volume 1, 1984, p.448). I have now shown you two sources from the national encyclopedias of Kyrgyzstan, where not only this state is mentioned, but its essence is described. Foggy kub ( talk) 17:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • All the sources you cite are Kyrgyz, but for neutrality and balance, it is necessary to have non-Kyrgyz sources. As you know, both the Encyclopedia Britannica and Paul George Geiss in no way confirm the alleged "existence of an independent Kyrgyz state" at the beginning of the XVI century. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 20:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • [28]. Foggy kub ( talk) 02:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      • No need to joke like that, I have already analyzed in detail (Jan 23 - Jan 27) of this author of popular travel guides to London and Europe and a compiler of multi-volume collections of interesting and funny facts. This author is not authoritative in the field of medieval history in general and the medieval history of the Kyrgyz people in particular. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 11:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
        • For your information, these sources are already enough and this already proves that the state existed. They also wanted to delete the article " Kyrgyz Khanate", but after these sources, the deletion was rejected. Thanks. Foggy kub ( talk) 11:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
          • When you run out of arguments do you just say "There are enough sources"? Quantity does not mean quality. I see how in fear of deleting the article you are so hastily looking for any mention in self-published books that you don’t even notice that these books have already been posted. Kazman322 ( talk) 11:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • In general, the article can be considered complete, now I will ask everyone to read it, check the sources and generally analyze the information. Regarding "History of the Kirghiz SSR, Volume 1, 1984" and "Kyrgyzstan: Encyclopedia" I cannot understand why you ignore the arguments of our colleague Foggy kub in every possible way. As for your words "All the sources that you cite are Kyrgyz, but for neutrality and balance, non-Kyrgyz sources are necessary" I don't understand your claim, these are NATIONAL encyclopedias, and "History of the Kirghiz SSR" is generally an official work of the Academy of Sciences of the History of the Kirghiz SSR. Th3Shoudy ( talk) 10:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      • National Kyrgyz sources reflect only the Kyrgyz version of their national history. Wikipedia (any language version) cannot be a reflection of only one national point of view. Otherwise, we would write articles about the history of Russia based exclusively on Russian national encyclopedias, and this would be one-sided and non-neutral. That is why, in order to avoid a systematic deviation into the national version of events, it is necessary to take into account neutral foreign academic and encyclopedic sources. As you know, Britannica does not know about the subject of the article, does not mention a word about it. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 17:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
        • Your example with the History of Russia is incorrect. Whose history will be more attractive for studying, Russia or Kyrgyzstan? I think there is no need to say too much here. Well-known English-language sources did not pay much attention to the study of the History of Kyrgyzstan, and I think that you will agree with me here. "Reflect only the Kyrgyz point of view" And what would another point of view look like in your opinion? I ask you to pay attention that the article does not say that the Kyrgyz had some kind of strong state, the article is primarily about an independent STATE EDUCATION, about the independence of the Kyrgyz tribes. I think a quote from Friedrich Wilheim Nietzsche is perfect here. "The nation that perceives the interpretation of its history through the eyes of a neighbor will never survive." Th3Shoudy ( talk) 18:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
          • Instead of citing foreign non-Kyrgyz sources that are confirmed in academic literature (according to Wikipedia rules), you quote Nietzsche and talk about the right of the Kyrgyz to their state, is this your potential? Kazman322 ( talk) 02:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.