Jump to content

Talk:Crimean Tatars/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

deleted propaganda and racist attacks Devlet Geray (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

deleted propaganda and racist attacks Devlet Geray (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Aha... And Russians "must be responsible as a nation" for the burning of Kazan, Spaniards and Englishmen "as a nation" for the colonization of the Americas, Italians "as a nation" for the conquests of the Roman Empire, Persians for their attacking Greece in th 4th century BC, Egyptians for the slavery of the Jewish people... =) Don Alessandro 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violation

Today, more than 250,000 Crimean Tatars have returned to their homeland, struggling to re-establish their lives and reclaim their national and cultural rights against many social and economic obstacles. - This is wishful thinking. Anybody who knows the history knows that Tatars are genocidal occupiers of Slav territories. They were also avid nazi collaborators during WWII, and were righftully punished. One can only ignore these facts on purpose in a bias towards the Tatars.

Huh... A portion of nationalist propaganda... :(
Anybody who knows the history...
Anybody who knows soviet "history", which was written by soviet "historians" after WW II to acquit the Stalin's act of genocide.
Crimean Tatar collaborationism is a very controversial topic. According to different researchers there were about 10,000 Crimean Tatar collaborators (while the total number of the Crimean Tatars was approximately 200,000, and the total number of the collaborators in Crimea was about 40,000). So, Crimean Tatar collaborators comprised about 5% of all Crimean Tatars and about 25% of all collaborators.
And for medieval history of Crimean Tatars... If you understand Russian, you'd better read Валерий Возгрин "Историческтие судьбы крымских татар". The best book ever written on the Crimean Tatar history.
Don Alessandro 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Like a Crimean Tatar i want to say that yeah between us were collaborators -5%. And what about russians or frenchs or english or even jewish?My grandpa was fighting on the WW2 for you, for your life.He was fighting for you now to seet in internet and write all those thing you wrote.Is he rightfully punished?I think no. It just seems like you are skin or smth else in that way.

To those who seem to be reverting the page

If you read a book on crimean tatars in any history section of your library or even better yet, go online and look up the history of crimean tatars on their own web pages, then you will discover that crimean tatars are believed to be a fusion of peoples from the Mongolian horde and the resident people there in the crimea. Go to any website and you will discover that the crimean tatars are a blend of ethnicities - some look caucasian and some look mongoloid (oriental). Hence the turkic-mongoloid designation. Most authorities agree that a large part of their ancestry derives from the Tatars who followed the Mongols from Mongolia. I had an image of a bunch of crimean tatars on the site but it was unfortunately removed.Kennethtennyson 19:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible to understand your position. You say that some look caucasian and some look mongoloid (whatever that means), yet you choose to define the entire population as mongoloid (whatever that means). Are you going to arbitrarily assign an alleged race to every nation and ethnic group in the Wikipedia? Please provide concrete evidence and references, clarify what you mean by "a book" or "most authorities" 141.154.252.174 06:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
"Mongoloid" is the definition from the race theory, which is controversial and is no longer applicable to many ethnicities, although the concept is useful for describing of traits of human appearance. mikka (t) 17:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You're taking things out of context

Mongoloid is a descriptive term. If you were to use the current term - turkic - it is a very misleading term to describe ethnicities as it is not an ethnicity but a linguistic group. It's similar to describing french speaking citizens (afro caribeans and people from quebec as a "Franco" ethnic group when they are very different.) Most historians have been trying to shy away from the term Turkic because it is so confusing. The average reader who is unfamiliar with this term will refer to it as Turkish (which relates to the people from Turkey). Most of my history students have been confused by it. Have you actually ever met any Crimean tatars? There ethnic group is a mixture of caucasian traits with mongoloid - Hence, turkic-mongoloid. Mongoloid -as opposed to negroid and caucasoid- does not mean they are mongolian - just meaning anyone with East asian characteristics). IF you go to any crimean tatar website and look at the pictures they will show you a mixture of peoples - some looking "oriental" others looking "turkish/mediteranean" and others looking "slavic." Have you read any books on the history of the crimean tatars? Most would say that a large part of their history hails from the Golden Horde's movement out of Mongolia into the crimean area and the resulting admixture with other peoples. If you want to make it easy instead of going to your local library, just go to any central websites run by crimean tatars online.

Mikka, it's true that some people are shying away from racial terms; however, mikka, it is pretty obvious that racial terms if not just for descriptive terms is an important distinction continuing for the last millenia until today. Remember, the civil rights movement was only 40 years ago. If you look at the crimean tatar history, their ethnicity lead to some degree to their persecution by Stalin. Today, if you are of the wrong ethnic/racial group you can get killed in some areas of the US, Europe, Japan, or Russia. Look at what's happening in Africa. Kennethtennyson 23:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Long history of enslavement and robbery of northern neighbors by Crimean Tatars

The knowledge about those facts belongs to regular education and doesn't require special proofs, since we could start fierce discussions on every historical fact in Wikipedia. Therefore I don't see why some very political correct users (you hardly will find such political correctness towards Russia) constantly think they have a right to remove the mentioning of those crimes. This is an important part of Crimean Tatar history, since it formed their life basis and was one of their main income sources for centuries.

If somebody nevertheless needs sources, here is one: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17747

Fisher 24 has analyzed the slave razzias conducted by the Muslim Crimean Tatars against the Christian populations of southern Poland and Muscovite Russia during the mid-15th through late 17th century (1463-1794). Relying upon admittedly incomplete sources (“…no doubt there are many more slave raids that the author has not uncovered” 25), his conservative tabulations 26 indicate that at least 3 million (3,000,000) persons- men, women, and children- were captured and enslaved during this so-called “harvesting of the steppe”. Fisher describes the plight of those enslaved: 27

…the first ordeal [of the captive] was the long march to the Crimea. Often in chains and always on foot, many of the captives died en route. Since on many occasions the Tatar raiding party feared reprisals or, in the seventeenth century, attempts by Cossack bands to free the captives, the marches were hurried. Ill or wounded captives were usually killed rather than be allowed to slow the procession. Heberstein wrote… “the old and infirm men who will not fetch much as a sale, are given up to the Tatar youths either to be stoned, or thrown into the sea, or to be killed by any sort of death they might please.” An Ottoman traveler in the mid-sixteenth century who witnessed one such march of captives from Galicia marveled that any would reach their destination- the slave markets of Kefe. He complained that their treatment was so bad that the mortality rate would unnecessarily drive their price up beyond the reach of potential buyers such as himself. A Polish proverb stated: “Oh how much better to lie on one’s bier, than to be a captive on the way to Tartary”

Actually, there are many more sources, Google helps. Voyevoda 16:22, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Although the statement about slave capture/trading is correct, I would agree with anon 18.97.5.179, that it rather belong to Crimean Khanate article. This article should be about ethnic rather than about political history.--AndriyK 18:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
In the most cases slave hunting was not state policy but private actions of different warrior groups. Therefore the mentioning of it belongs in this article and not to Crimean Khanate. It was their very lifestyle, not policy. Voyevoda 18:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, it does not belong to the history of tatarian ethnicity. This characterize the situation in the Khanate. In fact, the state was supporting the slave trading, otherwise "actions of different warrior groups" would be senseless.
You version does not look neutral. Where is the tatarian POV?--AndriyK 19:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
What is neutral? Something that doesn't let a nation appear in a too bad light? Sorry, this is not neutral, this is a sort of lie, if it conceals historical facts out of political correctness or current geopolitical conjuncture.
What then belongs to the history of an ethnicity? In my opinion, its historical lifestyle and occupations belong to the history of the people, not of the state.Voyevoda 18:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I mean one should be very carefull when writing about ethnicities who are not so multiple as Russians or even Ukrainians or even Belarusian. There cannot be so many Tatarian editors on WP as, for instance, Russians. Therefore there could be a tendency that tatarians will look in Wikipedia articles much worse than they deserve. I do not think it will improve the quality of the resourse.
I'd not continue the edit war with you, but I'd ask you to think about what I wrote.--AndriyK 20:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
That's a good point, but I wonder, whether you have told the same to a Pole, for example. Considering their number in Wikipedia one could think they are as numberous on Earth as Chinese or Indians, with all the consequences for the historical views in Wikipedia articles. I think an article on history should not be a matter of how much representatives a certain historical version is lobbied by on each side but of historical facts. Moreover, you can look back how one-sided anti-Russian the Crimean Tatars article was before I came. I contributed some more historical facts (an action that can't be wrong). And I think that it is also worth to think about why turning an article from sharp anti-Russian into a balanced one, at once attracts outraged critics and edit wars. Voyevoda
If you start a subject such as ``Long history of enslavement and robbery of northern neighbors by Crimean Tatars``, you can not claim you are balanced. Nobody will buy it. BlackSea 08:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Please be sure, I'd tell you the same even if you were a Pole, a Chinese or an Indian.
It's nice that you corrected an anti-Russian article, but please keep in mind that there could be not enough users correcting anti-Tatarian articles. Therefore we have to take care of it, if we want to have an Encyclopedia instead of a xenophobic propaganda machine.--AndriyK 10:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Right said, AndriyK! BlackSea 08:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Voyevoda, are you one of those awful skinhead?

I'm sure he is.

Scythians

"The earliest non-Turkic nomad population (Scythians etc.) was assimilated to Turkic."

A little far fetched isn't it? According to whom? Unless someone can show some credible sources backing up such a theory this line needs to be removed.--Eupator 04:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

we are "turkic" we are NOT "TURKS" CRIMEAN TATARS will never be CRIMEAN TURKS

"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 23:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Atrocious

I find this article to be atrociously biased and targeted against the Crimean Tartars. No other article on Wikipedia that speaks about the ethnic origins of people includes a section on the slave trade (although I understand a need for it, it might be better suited in a section that speaks about the history of the Crimean Khanate). The article does relatively little to inform individuals about the culture of Crimean Tartars and sounds like it has been written by a Russian apologist. Articles on Wikipedia are meant to be neutral (See WP:NPOV and are not meant to make certain ethnic groups feel better about themselves. We get it, your people were enslaved, people died, get over it. (Jerry Barrons (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC))

Interesting article with stats

See [1]. Mash Talk 10:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Saide Arifova.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Saide Arifova.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Cuneyt-arkin.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cuneyt-arkin.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

According to sondakika.com (I think this web is not Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), "Aslen Kırım Tatar Nogaylarindandır". Crimean Tatars or Nogais ? Anyway, he is X descent and not suitable for the infobox of Crimean Tatars. -- Takabeg (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You do know that as there are the Nogai who are a separate nation, there are Noğay (Nogai) who are considered a subgroup of Crimean Tatars who lived in the northern Crimean steppes right? The Night and the Silent Water (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

/www.kirimdernegi.org.tr is a webcite of Crimean Tatars. It's not Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, not neutral source. -- Takabeg (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is an official organization, I do not know what sort of neutrality you are looking for but I can say it is a great deal more neutral than Soviet history books. Rather than that, you should be looking for reliability as a source, which it is. The Night and the Silent Water (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Official but not third party. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview -- Takabeg (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The citation given for Aziz Nesin in his article (http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/aydin.html#_ftn6) is a review of a master's thesis for a Canadian university, written by a Turkish person which itself references the words of another Turkish and (given the content of the words - surely) non-Tartarian person. Third party enough?The Night and the Silent Water (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

According to some sources (for example İlber Ortaylı) Ayşe Hafsa Sultan was Crimean Tatars. But according to other sources (for example Çağatay Ulucay) she was not Crimean Tatars. -- Takabeg (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Aziz Nesin

Aziz Nesin is not a Crimean Tatar. If his parents were Crimean Tatar, he was a Turkish people of Crimean descent. I oppose to add People of X descent to X people's infobox. If we allow it, we will see İsmet İnönü's photograph in the infobox of the article Kurdish people, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's photograph in the infobox of the article Georgian people. -- Takabeg (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Copy and pasting from above: "The citation given for Aziz Nesin in his article (http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/aydin.html#_ftn6) is a review of a master's thesis for a Canadian university, written by a Turkish person which itself references the words of another Turkish and (given the content of the words - surely) non-Tartarian person. Third party enough?"The Night and the Silent Water (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
With your way of thinking then there are no Crimean Tatars! Kırımoğlu is Ukrainian as his grandparents were, Gasprinskiy is Russian as his grandparents were etc.! If you insist on claiming all Turkish people are Turkish regardless of their ethnic origin then we have a problem beyond this article. Look at the Tatar article, there are Tatars there who are all Russian/Ukrainian citizens etc. since there was no independent Tatar state since the middle ages. What you said might have applied to a larger nation that has a smaller diaspora than itself, but the Crimean Tatars are mostly diaspora.The Night and the Silent Water (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No. This is not related with their nationality. Did Mustafa Abdülcemil Qırımoğlu adopt Ukrainian ethnic identity ? Did Gasprinskiy adopt Russian ethnic identity ? -- Takabeg (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Did Aziz Nesin adopt Crimean Tatar ethnic identity ? -- Takabeg (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No, but neither did Charles Bronson, nor Rudolf Nureyev concerning their Tatar ethnicity. Nevertheless they are part of the diaspora, and their ethnic origins are apparent. The Night and the Silent Water (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, this is getting annoying. You didn't even give me a reply and completely remove my addition by yourself. If this is how you will do this, please also remove Charles Bronson, Nureyev etc. all the others including Tatars never mentioned they are Tatars but lived as Russians etc. Unless, that is, this is something that for some reason you wish to limit to Crimean Tatars of Turkey alone. The Night and the Silent Water (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is the talk page of Crimean Tatars, not Tatars. If you want you can use Talk:Tatars. Takabeg (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't even my point. Why do I get a feeling that this is another one of those insane turkish nationalism stuff that appears to be so common in all turkic-related pages? The Night and the Silent Water (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war and source

Related with edit war between DragonTIger23 and Voyevoda, I read the page 26 of The Russian Annexation of the Crimea 1772-1783. But I cannot find even the term "Cossak" in that page. Why ?

See: Alan W. Fisher, The Russian Annexation of the Crimea 1772-1783, Cambridge University Press, p. 26. -- Takabeg (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't read the note at the end of the page. Närking (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Now read footnote. Mercı. Takabeg (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Slave Trade section

I am concerned with the opening sentences of this paragraph,

  • 1."Until the beginning of the 18th century, Crimean Tatars were known for frequent devastating raids into Ukraine and Russia."
  • 2."For a long time, until the early 18th century, the Crimean Khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East which was one of the fundamentals of its economy."
  • 3."One of the most important trading ports and slave markets was Kefe."

Which are completely unsourced. Does anyone have a reliable source for these sentences?

These sentences appear to be sourced by reliable sources,

  • 1."Some researchers estimate that altogether more than 3 million people, predominantly Ukrainians but also Russians, Belarusians and Poles, were captured and enslaved during the time of the Crimean Khanate in what was called "the harvest of the steppe"."[4][5]
  • 2."A constant threat from Crimean Tatars supported the appearance of cossackdom. But in fact, there were always small raids committed by both Tatars and Cossacks, in both directions."[6]
  • 3."The last recorded major Crimean raid, before those in the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774) took place during the reign of Peter I (1682–1725)."[6] --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Check Eizo Matsuki, The Crimean Tatars and their Russian-Captive Slaves An Aspect of Muscovite-Crimean Relations in the 16th and 17th Centuries [2] from the Mediterranean Studies Group at Hitotsubashi University. There you will find the confirmations for everything.
  • "From the beginning of the 16th century until the end of 17th century the Crimean Tatar raider bands made almost annual forays into agricultural Slavic lands searching for captives to sell as slaves".
  • "As many scholars recognize the slave trade was the most important basis for the Crimean Tatar economy in the 16th and 17th centuries"
  • "Most captives were usually driven to Kaffa, the largest slave market of the Crimea under the direct administration of the Ottoman Empire, and were sold there to the slave merchants of Greek, Jewish, Armenian and Muslim origin"
I think it is particularily important to know this initial aspect of the history of Russo-Crimean relations to avoid a one-sided view of Crimean Tatars as victims. --Voyevoda (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Crimean Tatars vs. Cossacks

@ Tagabeg. As shown above, the slave trade was the most important part of the Crimean Tatar economy and thus the motor of the raids, but it is not the same for Cossacks who never traded with slaves. The uncomparable motives lead to the strong deduction that the initiative was on the side of the Crimean Tatars while the Cossacks answered in order to liberate their captives, to retaliate and to prevent new Crimean raids. This is also true, because the Crimean slave trade started long before the Cossacks appeared. Your wording But in fact, there were always small raids committed by both Tatars and Cossacks, in both directions is unsuitable, because it is supposed to contradict the previous sentence and thus is unjustified. It pulls the mutual attacks and the citation of Alain Fisher out of the historical context and blindly repeats it as something contradictory to the previous sentence. But it is not. Therefore I demand to end this edit warring and to reformulate the text. --Voyevoda (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that both Crimean and Cossack raids might be mentioned, but indeed it should be made clear that they had different scale and motives. GreyHood Talk 16:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it should both be mentioned. And maybe also the fact that they sometimes were allies against Russia and Poland. Besides that it's also a known fact that Cossacks from the Hetmanate, Sloboda Ukraine, Don etc took thousands of civilians in the Baltics and Finland during the Great Northern War in order to sell them as slaves. You can read about this in A.G. Shkvarov's book "Severnaja voina. Donskoye kazachestvo na pribaltiiskom teatre" from 2009. Närking (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Aziz Nesin etc.

According to Edward Allworth, "...have no sense of or interest in being Crimean Tatars, even though in some cases their names clearly imply a Tatar background" (Edward Allworth, The Tatars of Crimea: return to the homeland : studies and documents, ISBN13 978-0-8223-1994-8, p. 328.) So Tatarness is not important. Takabeg (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not referring specifically to any of them, but clearly mentions being members of the community. Your argument is invalid, read more carefully.The Night and the Silent Water (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
We have to remove Aziz Nesin from infobox, because there is no evidence to prove he adopted Crimean-Tatarness. We can know only possibility that he might be a Crimean Tatar descent by his surname. A source said his surname implies a Tatar background. Do we have to consider him a Crimean Tatar ? This problem is similar to the problem on "Who is Kurd ?". As we know, İsmet İnönü, Bülent Ecevit etc. were Kurdish descent, but nobody (except extremists) considers them as Kurdish people. Takabeg (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
You do not understand, the source never said his surname implied it, it said public figures in general. For all we know the author could have meant Fahrettin Cureklibatur. The source does, however, say that he is part of the Crimean Tatar community which establishes his identity. Hence what you are doing is misinterpreting/misunderstanding the text. Again, please read more carefully you are taking things way out of context. The Turkish laws of assimilation do not hold sway internationally and those whose ethnicity are not Turkish will not be called Turks, and the possible fact that "nobody considers them kurdish etc." bears no scholarly value as it is completely subjective. The Night and the Silent Water (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey#Aziz Nesin etc. Takabeg (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
For now, sources don't prove his Crimean Tatarness. Even if we will prove his Crimean Tatarness, we cannot use this non-free file in infobox. Takabeg (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually for now the sources clearly state him belonging to the Crimean Tatar community, direct quote: "The majority of the Tatar community is well integrated into the mainstream population of turkiye. over the last several decades, the community in turkiye produced many celebrities and high-ranking public and political figures, such as esin engin and nesrin sipahi (singers), aziz nesin (a writer),..." on page 328. The file's status is not certain and until it's status is clearly determined the use is fair game. The Night and the Silent Water (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing edit by Voyevoda

Hi, everyone. An user continue to change this sentence only by your POV] stubbornly. source. If he/she wants to alternate explanation, it's necessary to ad extra source. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring the discussion above? --Voyevoda (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
We cannot change contents of books by discussion. Takabeg (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't simply report contents of books. Citations should be given due weight, and if they are not entirely correct or precise, they could and should be worded more accurately. GreyHood Talk 09:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, I wouldn't use the phrase "small raids" on the part of the Tatars. There were many big wars and big raids, and such a phrasing is definitely misleading. GreyHood Talk 09:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
As long as I understand, a POV pushing user has no intention to provide extra sources. Takabeg (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Currently the article reads: "The Cossacks answered similar raids to free the captives, to retaliate and to prevent new attacks". Most of this information is not contained in the source. The source, Alan Fisher simply writes that there were raids commited in both directions on both sides since a long time. By using this information, it is not possible to deduce that Cossack raids were done as retaliation or aimed to protect or prevent. This is unsourced information, maybe original research, and can not be attributed to Fisher. Filanca (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Reading the arguments above spares redundant questions. My edits didn't contradict what Fisher wrote. --Voyevoda (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

@Voyevoda, why are you ignoring sources ? Takabeg (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Voyevoda, I did not say you contradict Fisher. I said you wrote information not contained in Fisher and attributed it to him. Filanca (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In short. We have to provide those sentences:

A constant threat from Crimean Tatars was one of the reasons for the formation of Cossacks, armed Slavic horsemen, who often repelled the attacks and liberated the captives. [citation needed]

The Don and Zaporozhian Cossacks also managed to raid Crimean Tatars land proper.[citation needed]

If we cannot find Identifying reliable sources for them, we must remove them. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


Religion

In infobox it is said that one of the religions of the Crimean Tatars is Orthodox Christianity and the reference given is István Vásáry. "Orthodox Christian Qumans and Tatars of the Crimea in the 13th and 14th Centuries." Central Asiatic Journal. no 32, 1988. I think the page number also should be given as well, as I could not find anything in the resource saying that some part of the contemporary Crimean Tatars are Orthodox Christians. Ali (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Giving One Hundred and Ten Percent...

"The Crimean Tatars are subdivided into three sub-ethnic groups: the Tats (not to be confused with the Tat people) who inhabited the mountainous Crimea before 1944 (about 60%), the Yalıboylus who lived on the southern coast of the peninsula (about 35%), and the Noğays (not to be confused with the Nogai people) - former inhabitants of the Crimean steppe (about 15%). The Tats and Yalıboylus have a Caucasian physical appearance, while the Noğays retain Central Asian characteristics."

The math doesn't really add up there. 60+35+15=110%. Could someone research and amend this to add up to 100%?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.157.82 (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2006‎ (UTC)

Tatars in Finland

Tatars in Finland are not Crimean Tatars. They are Mishär Tatars, i.e. belong to a subdivision of the Kazan Tatars, or Tatars proper. See: Finnish Tatars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panu Petteri Höglund (talk • contribs) 10:42, 17 July 2007‎ (UTC)

Mishar Tatars aren't Qazan Tatars, however they are also part of Volga Tatars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.193.120 (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about sourcing of diaspora article

I'm somewhat concerned that the lack of sourcing at Crimean_Tatar_diaspora. While I know next to nothing about this subject, I do know that wherever there is political persecution, there are people who do not want that story told. The lack of proper sourcing leaves the article open to bad faith edits by people who would prefer history forget any of this ever happened.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlvtelvis (talk • contribs) 02:15, 24 December 2007‎ (UTC)

Recent changes

Would DA1 explain why he is adding an unsourced statement to the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Modern-Day Russia

The introductory section of this article should change the location of Crimea as no longer in Ukraine, but rather as part of "modern-day Russia" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephwaters (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The legitimacy and legality of this has been rejected by the government of Ukraine and the international community, with few exceptions. So the opinion here is the one which is recognized by the majority, not some countries' state propaganda. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Why does this WIkipedia article take a stance of "some countries' state propaganda", in this case, the Western countries, instead of accepting the right of the Crimean people to self determination? The Tatars are not in the majority in Crimea. Just because they did not accomplish their goal with their boycott, with huge turnout occurring from ethnic Russians in Crimea, does not mean the Russians rigged the election. To uncritically accept this simply because it is the line of Western governments and media would betray an editorial bias against reality by Wikipedia editors. The Wikipedia article on the referendum notes that it was a free and fair election. Wikipedia should be devoted to consistently acknowledging the truth rather than "some countries' state propaganda." There is no reason Wikipedia needs to accept "the international community"'s line on any particular issue, as encyclopedias should be devoted to telling the truth, rather than accepting the western elites' attempts to respark the Cold War over an issue that should be left up to the Crimeans to sort out themselves. For Wikipedia to not recognize this on this article would be akin to recognizing the people of Iran as being under the authority of the Mujahadin el Khalk rather than the Ayatollahs, simply because the "international community" detests Iran nearly as much as they hate Russia.71.209.208.230 (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Indigenous People

The Slavs, being the result of mixing of Thracian, Greek, etc over thousands of years in the area, are indigenous Crimeans. The Tatars came in the 1300's and are not "indigenous" in the generally accepted meaning of the term in American-English. This should be reflected in the article. They are no more "indigenous" to Crimea than the Scots-Irish are to Appalachia. astrohoundy (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe one should first read something (e.g., at least, the articles in Wiki) about the ethnogenesis, ethnic history of the Crimean Tatars, history of Crimea and the definition of the phrase "indigenous people"? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

On International Recognition

Ali-al-Bakuvi's position appears to be inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles. Taiwan, for instance, is usually treated like a separate country from China on Wikipedia even though it is unrecognized to be so(even by its own government.) The article on Taiwan addresses the issues with recognition, but it is written as though it is administered apart from China. This is probably because an encyclopedia should strive to state not what is ideal, but what is closest to reality. The reality is, like it or not, that Russia in controlling Crimea. We should certainly point out that the international community condemns this annexation, but why should we deny the Russia is administering it?

astrohoundy (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The case with China and Taiwan is completely different issue, stable for decades and de-facto recognized by the both sides. You should compare the Crimea with other unrecognized states in Post-Soviet area and you will see how these "countries" are treated in an encyclopedia; in the best case, they are regarded as disputed territories.
OK, about facts: the Crimea de-facto annexed by Russia, is not under control of Ukraine at the moment. But is it part of Russia? For the whole World except, Russia NOT. It is the fact. If you want to show the fact of annexation in the article, make a footnote stating something like disputed territory between Russia and Ukraine, annexed and controlled by Russia, which is found as unlawful act of invasion by international community. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis, 15th to 20th centuries

This seems to be more complicated than evident at first sight. Apparently, the Kipchak population was designated "Tatars" by the Turkish elite during the 15th to 18th centuries. But as the population became substantially "Turkified", they seem to have come to consider themselve simply as "Turks", and the early "Tatar" intellectuals in c. 1900 apparently insisted they were Turks, not Tatars. So the question would be at which time they came round to again embracing a "Tatar" identity. --dab (𒁳) 06:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Rustam Khudzhamov

Any sources proving Crimean Tatar background of Rustam Khudzhamov? There is an interview (in Russian) with him where he saying his father to be an ethnic Uzbek. But nothing about Tatarness. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Nirril

Dear user, We would want to come to a consensus with you, as you are going to be complained to Administration board for edit warring soon .

  • 6,000,000 is quite gigantic claim and actually it was shown in our edit as a footnote, and explained how it was get.
  • No proofs about Tatarness of Rustam Khudzhamov.
  • We don't understand your criteria for changing people in the infobox (maybe you can give us a hint, maybe WP:IDONTLIKEIT?).
  • You are continuing to delete info about the madhab in the article. Why?

Can we discuss it? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits removing all reference to Golden Horde/Jochid origins

It seems within the past year there have been major edits to this article. While mostly positive, there also seems to have been a direction to clear any mention of history dating back to the Golden Horde, which was previously present in this article. Instead, the section in particular has opted to mention history only beginning with the Ottoman era. Is there a reason or justification for this, or is it purely opinionated edits persuaded by the stigma associated with Turkic Central-Asia's history with the Mongol Empire? Even 2 months ago, the History section mentioned Hacı I Girai, the first Crimean Khan, and his Jochid and Golden Horde ancestry. Today, there is no mention whatsoever; certainly suspicious. DA1 (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Crimean Tatars. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Crimean Tatars. 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:

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) 19:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crimean Tatars. 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:

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) 12:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crimean Tatars. 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:

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) 04:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda

User:Tobby72. Crimean Khanate and Crimean Tatars history is not only raids against Russia. So, this section should be either expanded or deleted. As it's not expanded, I delete it, because now it looks like propaganda. If you don't agree, you can expand that section. --Devlet Geray (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The slave trade was the backbone of the Crimean Khanate's economy, and Crimean-Nogai slave raids into Ukraine, Poland and Russia have been well-documented by contemporary chroniclers and modern historians, but anyway, we report what reliable sources say. Your POV is irrelevant.
Deleted text: — diff, diff, diff:

The Crimean Tatars emerged as a nation at the time of the Crimean Khanate, an Ottoman vassal state during the 15th to 18th centuries and one of the great centers of slave trade to the Ottoman Empire.[1]

Until the beginning of the 18th century, Crimean Tatars were known for frequent, at some periods almost annual, devastating raids into Ukraine and Russia.[2][3][1][4] For a long time, until the late 18th century, the Crimean Khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East which was the most important basis of its economy.[5] One of the most important trading ports and slave markets was Kefe.[6][7] Slaves and freedmen formed approximately 75% of the Crimean population.[8] The 17th century Ottoman writer and traveller Evliya Çelebi estimated that there were about 400,000 slaves in the Crimea but only 187,000 free Muslims.[1]

Some researchers estimate that more than 2 million people were captured and enslaved during the time of the Crimean Khanate. Polish historian Bohdan Baranowski assumed that in the 17th century century Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (present-day Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) lost an average of 20,000 yearly and as many as one million in all years combined from 1500 to 1644.[1][9] In retaliation, the lands of Crimean Tatars were being raided by Zaporozhian Cossacks,[10] armed Ukrainian horsemen, who defended the steppe frontier – Wild Fields – against Tatar slave raids and often attacked and plundered the lands of Ottoman Turks and Crimean Tatars. The Don Cossacks and Kalmyk Mongols also managed to raid Crimean Tatars' land.[11] The last recorded major Crimean raid, before those in the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74) took place during the reign of Peter the Great (1682–1725).[10] However, Cossack raids continued after that time; Ottoman Grand Vizier complained to the Russian consul about raids to Crimea and Özi in 1761.[10] In 1769 one last major Tatar raid, which took place during the Russo-Turkish War, saw the capture of 20,000 slaves.[5]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Brian L. Davies (2014). Warfare, State and Society on the Black Sea Steppe. pp. 15–26. Routledge.
  2. ^ Subtelny, Orest (2000). "Ukraine: A History". University of Toronto Press. pp. 105–106.
  3. ^ Paul Robert, Magocsi (2010). A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples, Second Edition. University of Toronto Press. p. 185. ISBN 1442698799.
  4. ^ "The Crimean Tatars and the Ottomans". Hürriyet Daily News. 29 March 2014.
  5. ^ a b Mikhail Kizilov. "Slave Trade in the Early Modern Crimea From the Perspective of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources". Oxford University. pp. 2–7.
  6. ^ Yermolenko, Galina I. (2010). Roxolana in European Literature, History and Culture. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 111. ISBN 1409403742.
  7. ^ "The Crimean Tatars and their Russian-Captive Slaves Archived 5 June 2013 at the Wayback Machine" (PDF). Eizo Matsuki, Mediterranean Studies Group at Hitotsubashi University.
  8. ^ Slavery – Slave societies. Encyclopædia Britannica.
  9. ^ Darjusz Kołodziejczyk, as reported by Mikhail Kizilov (2007). "Slaves, Money Lenders, and Prisoner Guards:The Jews and the Trade in Slaves and Captivesin the Crimean Khanate". The Journal of Jewish Studies. p. 2.
  10. ^ a b c Alan W. Fisher, The Russian Annexation of the Crimea 1772–1783, Cambridge University Press, p. 26.
  11. ^ Brian Glyn Williams (2013). "The Sultan's Raiders: The Military Role of the Crimean Tatars in the Ottoman Empire" (PDF). The Jamestown Foundation. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
-- Tobby72 (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


  • User:Tobby72, it's up to you to disagree or not, it has got nothing to do with wikipedia rules. Show at least one document of Crimean Khanate times that documents the fact that "slave trade was the bachbone of the Crimean Khanate's economy". This was invented by Russian imperial historians, and then expanded and supplemented by Stalinist "historians". The history of the Crimean khanate consisted not only of raids and slav trade. -- Devlet Geray (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The 17th century Ottoman writer and traveller Evliya Çelebi reported that there were about 400,000 slaves in the Crimea in 1667. Was Çelebi the KGB agent? -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you have any proofs?
Your source is a modern book, not Evliya Çelebi's documents - Devlet Geray (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tobby72 and Devlet Geray: 1) Peter B. Brown, "Russian Serfdom's Demise and Russia's Conquest of the Crimean Khanate and the Northern Black Sea Littoral: Was There a Link?", in Eurasian Slavery, Ransom and Abolition in World History, 1200–1860 (Routledge, 2015), p. 346: "The slave trade was the backbone of the Crimean khanate's economy." 2) J. Otto Pohl, Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR, 1937–1949 (Greenwood, 1999), p. 110: "The slave trade formed the backbone of the Crimean Khanate's economy." Srnec (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Devlet Geray edits

Hello, Devlet Geray. Would you be so kind as to explain the reasons for this revert: [3]--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Because this information is not confirmed by the source. In the source there are no “other historians” there the opinion of one Vozgrin, a member of the Mejlis. This is a partisan source, at best, and can only be a source on the opinion of Vozgrin, and not on the fact itself. In addition, I can’t say that the third item of income (Vozgrin writes it) is so insignificant.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You have added a link to the Great Russian Encyclopedia. It says: “Until the middle of the 17th century, one of the main articles of income of the Crimean Khanate was booty (mainly prisoners) captured during the Crimean raids". I think this is a bad source for your statement.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It also says that "Leading position in Crimean Khanate economy occupied livestock. Agriculture was practiced only on a part of the peninsula (main. Culture - millet and wheat), C. K. was one of the main wheat suppliers to the Ottoman Empire. Viticulture and winemaking, horticulture and gardening were also developed. Big income to the Khan's court brang salt mining". Read carefully --Devlet Geray (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I see nothing here about "the role of the slave trade [...] is greatly exaggerated by modern historians" and nothing about "a historical myth". It may be necessary to rewrite this sentence in accordance with the cited sources.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I would suggest the wording like this: "Other scholars point out that although the booty (mainly prisoners) captured during the raids was one of the main sources of income of the Khanate, leading position in the economy was occupied by livestock."--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph claims to depreciate all the previous sentences. Moreover, there is no such opposition in the sources. The Great Russian Encyclopedia contrasts cattle breeding with agriculture rather than the slave trade.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Devlet. I see that the entire talk page is dedicated exclusively to you :)

There is no logic in creating a red link (Tatars (ethnonym)) instead of using the valid link, Tatars. On the existing page, there is a clear definition of Tatar as an ethnonym that fully includes Crimean Tatars along with all other peoples self-defining as Tatars. If you have an issue with that, you should take your opinion to that page and fight it through. Here, neither logic, nor Wiki rules allow you to - well, again, create a red link instead of using a valid link to an existing article on the exact same topic. So please, do leave it at that. Cheers and stay well & healthy, Arminden (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC) PS: here is what I mean, quoted from the lead of the Tatars page: "More recently, however, the term has come to refer more narrowly to related ethnic groups who refer to themselves as Tatars or who speak languages that are commonly referred to as Tatar, namely Tatar by Volga Tatars (Tatars proper), Crimean Tatar by Crimean Tatars and Siberian Tatar by Siberian Tatars." Arminden (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Devlet. Thank you for your reply. If you think a distinction should be made, do discuss it at the Tatars talk page. We should be careful not to fall into political/ideological traps. Russian interests and those opposing them may influence how these topics are addressed. Scientific aspects should be the only ones followed on Wikipedia - as much as that's possible. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Iranica in the "Further reading" section

User DevletGeray (now community banned)[4] tried to remove the Iranica source from the further reading section in the past, calling it "propaganda"[5]. Now user "PlanespotterA320" is at it as well. So whats the issue with having a reliable source (per WP:RS) in the further reading section? No one said Iranica is a specialist source vis. Crimean Tatars, but that's not a prequisite for being included in the further reading sections. The source not only discusses the Crimean Tatars as an ethnic group, but also their links to the former Persianate world (a concept for which Iranica is definitely a specialist source). I might add that I find "PlanespotterA320"'s caps-lock filled edit summaries problematic as well:

  • "Encyclopaedia Iranica article about Crimean Tatars is FILLED with historical inaccuracies, broad generalizations, and misleading content. Souce might be OK for Iranian history, but NOT Crimean Tatars" [6]
  • "Iranian encyclopedia is not an expert on Crimean Tatars and blatantly contradicts all REAL reliable sources like Vozrigin, Allworth, Williams, and things by ACTUAL experts on Crimean Tatars"[7]

I have no problem with the link being removed if someone could provide an actual reliable source which convincingly discredits Iranica as a source vis. Crimean Tatars. Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, not personal opinions (and certainly not for "Further reading" sections). - LouisAragon (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Iranica is considered a "reliable source" because it is a subject-matter expert on Iranian history and Persian subjects. They should not be treated like a subject matter expert or be treated like a reliable source on other topics - and under NO circumstances should a link to their highly chauvanistic, blatantly incorrect, poorly researched, low quality article about Crimean Tatars be linked to in Wikipedia. Just because the writers know a lot about Iran does not mean they are qualified to write about Crimean Tatars, and given the highly objectionable content in the article that is being linked to (which completely contradicts what all other reliable sources by subject-matter-experts on Crimean Tatars have to say like Allworth and Williams), it should not be treated as a reliable source.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I hardly can believe what you have written above about encyclopedia Iranica being "highly chauvanistic, blatantly incorrect, poorly researched, low quality article about Crimean Tatars", that highly sounds like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT case. Encyclopedia Iranica contradicting some other reliable sources about this topic does not make it being highly chauvanistic, blatantly incorrect, poorly researched, low quality article about Crimean Tatars.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Let me list numerous objectionable lines from the Iranian so-called encyclopedia that spread disinformation that we cannot encourage readers to view. It defines Crimean Tatar as "a name for a variety of Turkic-speaking peoples who moved to the Crimean peninsula in the past" (going with the old Russian line that Crimean Tatars are immigrants to Crimea, thereby excluding large parts of the Crimean Tatar population of Tatarized pre-horde Crimeans as not being Crimean Tatar); "On 18 May 1944, all the Crimean Tatars were sent by the Soviets in exile to Central Asia" (not true; deportation lasted several days and some exiles were sent to other places); it does not refer to subethnos by their proper ethnonym (ex, Yaliboylu); says the Crimean Tatar language was banned until the 1960's (Lenin Bayrağı was created in 1957), and overall bears all a hallmarks of sloppy "research" by an ignorant outsider to supplement their encyclopedia (any Crimean Tatar can tell you what Lenin Bayrağı was, btu clearly whoever wrote the article never heard of it). Sorry, but linking to that article, no matter what the website is, cannot be tolerated. I stand by the fact that the article is chauvanistic in light of the content of the article and undue emphasis on the Tats while glossing past key parts of Crimean Tatar history like the Gromyko commission and the civil rights movement (which any article about Crimean Tatars whose author engaged in the mildest of reasearch would bother to mention). You have not even attempted to argue that the article itself is quality only reverting to from MUH RELIABLE SOURCE site while not addressing any of the content itself.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Russias stance

This "The current Russian administration considers them a "national minority", but not an indigenous people, and continues to deny that they are titular people of Crimea, even though the Soviet Union considered them indigenous before their deportation and the subsequent dissolution of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (Crimean ASSR). Today, Crimean Tatars constitute approximately 15% of the population of Crimea"

is clearly POV. 178.24.244.208 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Molotov region ?

Is it Perm region? Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Beshogur without discussion here on the talkpage removed mention of the Crimean Tatar related ethnic groups like Urum, Krymchak, Karaite and claimed they were "definitely not related" which is absolutely false. The Urum language of Crimea is often considered a dialect of Crimean Tatar, the languages of the Krymchaks, Karaites and Çingene are very close to Crimean Tatar if not already just dialects of Crimean Tatar itself. Lipka Tatars are more distantly related but Nogays are only related to a tiny portion of the Crimean Tatar people (the north) and have no connection with the majority of Crimean Tatar people and culture. Azerbaijani and Turks were included in the list because their languages are somewhat mutually intelligible. We need to stop basing the notion of "related" solely on the mere 10% of the North because they are so radically different from the rest of Crimean Tatars. I just can't emphasize enough how absolutely outrageous it was that Kazaks were at one point in the related ethnic groups box! It's insane. Crimean Tatars are genetically, culturally, and linguistically closer to many peoples, from the Urum to the Turks, and out analysis of them should not ignore the factually obvious relations of the vast majority of the Crimean Tatar people or try to bring down other. Urum are far more related to Crimean Tatars than Kazakhs will ever be. "The Urum variety of Crimean Tatar is spoken north of Azov Sea" https://books.google.com/books?id=huk9EAAAQBAJ. "a new ethnie was formed on the soil of the Crimea when the older Greek, Gothic, Armenian and Italian Christian populations converted to Islam and turned Tatar." https://books.google.com/books?id=oBlREAAAQBAJ&pg=PA27 Do not make more changes without discussion because I don't want to see anyone ever add Kazakh to that list again.QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Anatolian Greeks being absorbed by Turkish people doesn't make Greeks a related ethnic group. Similarly French aren't Germans related ethnic group because they absorbed Frank and other Germanic ethnic groups. This is simply wrong. A language spoken by another ethnic group doesn't make them related as well. Urums are a Hellenic people, not Turkic. Beshogur (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
But French and Germans are very different in culture, diet, and language. Crimean Tatars very similar in language, diet, culture and blood to Urum, certianly far closer than the Nogays. Can you show one source that says that Crimean Tatars and Urum, or Crimean Tatars and Karaites, or Crimean Tatars and Krymchaks are not related? And yes, Greeks are a related ethnic group to Turks, just not close enough to be worth mentioning as most related. But Crimean Tatar and Urum similarities in every way are absolutely undeniable. The idea that Crimean Tatars bear no relation or similarities with other peoples of Crimea is a very fringe far-right theory.QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Can you show one source that says that Crimean Tatars and Urum, or Crimean Tatars and Karaites, or Crimean Tatars and Krymchaks are not related? How am I supposed to show it? You must show they're closely related. Wikipedia isn't based on "trust me bro". You bring up random ethnic groups speaking similar languages with different religions being related, especially bringing up Gypsies of Crimea being related to Tatars is something I heard for the first time. The idea that Crimean Tatars bear no relation or similarities with other peoples of Crimea is a very fringe far-right theory. lol what do you even mean? In the lead, it is mentioned that various ethnic group formed Crimean Tatar ethnogenesis. Now bringing up some of those as related ethnic groups is ridiculous. Crimean Italians/Greeks/Gypsy/or whatever aren't "related" in modern sense. Beshogur (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The Chigene are literally called "Tatar gypsies" and were so often mistaken for Crimean Tatars that most were deported despite Gypsies not being ordered for deportation. If people are so close that they are literally impossible for outsiders to tell apart and even call themselves part of the group, then there's relation, even if not by blood. "In 1944 Crimean Tatar speaking Gypsies were also deported.". The Crimean Roma wholly adopted the customs of Crimean Tatars, from language to dress, so that demonstrate relation. "В 1944 году крымские цыгане, также как и крымские татары, подверглись депортации в Среднюю Азию, что было связано с тем, что большинство крымов в советских паспортах были записаны как татары.". And as a general rule, if people have a language so close that it is mutually intelligible, then they're not "unrelated" since two separate languages don't become nearly identical by chance. (В. В. Баранова. Тюркоязычные греки Приазовья Э О, 2007 г.) You don't need a 100% match in language to blood to be related, large similarities in language and custom are sufficient. Saying that Crimean Tatar and Urum are unrelated is like saying that Russians and Belorussians are unrelated. Urum language "The language is very similar to Crimean Tatar (Crimean Turkish) and has almost no links at all with Greek." In other words, related.QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't speak Russian and your arguments is still a wp:or and wp:synth. Beshogur (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Also your source "Jews from Khazaria" is related to pseudoscientific website "khazaria.com". Beshogur (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Rowman & Littlefield is a legitimate academic publisher and the fact remains that Krymchak and Crimean Tatars are similar in the ways described by the quote. To say that Crimean Tatars and Krymchaks just became similar in culture by chance is absurd.QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
A publisher doesn't make a source reliable. Beshogur (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Anyways I appreciate you trying to add citations. Beshogur (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
You still haven't explained how Krymchaks or other listed peoples can somehow have so many identical traditions and customs to their Crimean Tatar neighbors by pure coincidence. (by the way, the article about Bukhari Jews lists Tajiks as related. It doesn't mean that Bukhari Jews are Tajiks pretending to be Jewish or anything nefarious, it just means that over time Bukhari Jews adopted so many Tajik customs that they are sufficiently similar in culture to be considered similar or related in culture) Also the only sources I could find outright saying Crimean Tatars aren't related to the early peoples of Crimea are far-right basically Nazi Russian websites that are full of theories not accepted by Wikipedia. If you want to add Romanian Tatar and Nogays to the list of related ethnic groups go ahead, but I will be really realld mad if I see Kazakhs in that list ever again, that was unexcusable.QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crimean_Tatars/Archive_1&oldid=1262458323"