Talk:Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe

3 million slaves in 300- 400 years?

Is this not a too large number it is probably not demographically possible. It would make

3,000,000 slaves : 300 years = an average 10,000 slaves/ prisoners every year. 3,000,000 slaves : 400 years = an average 7,500 slaves/ prisoners every year.

According to this source 1 Population of European Russia increased from 12 million in 1500 to 20 million in 1700. It is very unlikely that the Russian population increased while according to the article they were being captured on a massive scale. But the slave trading nomads are so few 1 million? and they did not increase but decrease in numbers during these centuries.

The reality probably is that the Russians killed and enslaved the nomads on a massive scale and so colonised their lands, that is why there are so few of them left. While the nomads probably could do very little damage in return. Because during these centuries the Russian state population grows and becomes stronger while the Nomads, lose their lands and populations.

How many Crimeans and Nogais did the Russians kill or enslave?

Crimean Tatar population was 300,000 in 1783. most of them were not nomads. Nogais were some 100,000 in the same time and most of them were nomads.

On the other hand it is also very illogical that there would be so many slaves. There is no need to have so much slaves. The Crimean and Nogais did not use much slaves, their total population was also very small compared to Russia, they had no sugar plantations where they needed large amounts of slaves.

The story is the same for the Ottoman Empire, there was no need for so much, Ottoman navy used galley slaves but they were some several thousands from entire Europe and Balkan and did not die in 1 year. There are no other places where the Ottomans should use slaves. Mostly Harems were used by the rich they were few and had few slaves.

So probably there was a slave trade but not massive nor was it several million, total was probably 300,000 during these centuries. The Crimean and Nogais casualties were probably the same, maybe more.DragonTiger23 (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I was translating, not endorsing. I have no idea where Fisher got his number. The whole article has a clear Russian bias and nearly everything written about slavery/serfdom has some degree of bias. The numbers given in the raid list look questionable to me. As for numbers, I think the standard estimate for emigrants to the New World before 1800 is 2 million Europeans and 8 million Africans. Since the New World colonies were not 80% black in 1800 you can see how often slaves die and need to be replaced. Do the math: If the death rate remains 5% higher than the birth rate then 72% of the population is lost in 25 years (0.95 to the 25th power). The Roman case shows that slaves are not confined to galleys and sugar plantations. Something as large as the Ottoman Empire could easily absorb 10,000 slaves per year. As for nomad deaths, my impression is that after the Mongol conquest the whole area south of the Oka and east of around Lvov was depopulated and kept in grassland by constant raiding. The growing Russian state provided enough protection for the tax-paying peasant population to grow, which paid for more soldiers, which led to more peasants in a spiral until the whole steppe fell to the plough. Like the North American Indians, although many were killed, the nomads were overwhelmed by the greater density of a farming population. There is no doubt that Russia has exported slaves since Kievan times. How large and important this was is a matter of guesswork. There has been little controversy because no one has enough data to properly attack or defend any opinion. We simply don't have good numbers. I tried to put a caveat at the top of the article.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there is much research needed on this topic by historians, Russian, Polish, Crimean and Ottoman documents should be estimated. Ottoman archives/documents on slave imports are especially important.

I dont think Atlantic or Roman slave trade are comparable to the Ottoman. Because Roman Empire was a slave society, this is based on the historical documents, the Ottoman documents show that in the Ottoman lands slaves were a minority used by the rich while most of the population was free villagers or townsmen. It seems that the number of slaves exported to the Ottoman empire varied greatly during the years, some years it was probably only hundreds, other years thousands.

Atlantic slave trade was very different, there was a constant need for slaves to work in the plantations such a reason does not seem to exist for the Ottomans. The result of the Atlantic slave trade was that there were 4 million African slaves in the US in 1860 and some 3 million in South America [The Atlantic slave trade was first to Brazil and then to the Carribean, so there would have been far more slaves here before the invention of the cotton gin, and far higher imports given the tropical death rate. -b.t.], so a large community of slaves was founded. I have not seen any source which documents large amount of slave population in Ottoman lands in the 1700s when the slave trade mostly ended. So if there were every year 10,000 imported it would make in 10 years a population of 100,000 but this is not the case.[74,145 with a 5% death rate- b.t.]

Or we can imagine that all imported slaves died in a very short time but this is also not very probable so probably fewer slaves than the Atlantic slave trade.

Nomadic societies always had less people than sedentary because the nomadic lifestyle supports only a limited amount of people, they need large areas to support their herds. When nomads are overpopulated they migrated to other areas or became sedentary. So the Mongol conquest has nothing to do with the sparse population of the steppe, it was always sparsely populated. [There was a large belt of forest-steppe that has now been plowed up. There seem to have been many people here during the Kievan Rus, as the name indicates. Documents from the Mongol period say little about population east of Lvov and south of the Oka, but we have no proper numbers. All over the world there has been fighting between peasants and nomads on the forest-steppe boundry, with the border shifting back and forth, as in Darfur recently.b.t] The nomads migrated every summer and winter to different grazing lands so that is why the land can be one time a year empty and the other season crowded.

Two Ottoman cities in the 16th century had large amount of slaves, Istanbul and Bursa. But the majority of both cities were still free persons. Bursa had 60,000 inhabitants in the 16th century and was some 20%(12,000) of total population were slave or formerly slave because many of them were freed after some years.

I have no number for the slaves of Istanbul, total city population was 500,000 in 1600s. Majority of population was free. Ottoman navy used some 10,000-20,000 galley rowers, if half of them were slaves it becomes some 5,000-10,000. Only the rich had some slaves and harems, so I dont know how high this number can be maybe 20,000 slaves.

And all the other areas of the Ottoman empire had less slaves then these two cities combined so if calculated Istanbul 30,000 slaves + Bursa 12,000 + 18,000 other Ottoman areas = 60,000 slaves for the total Ottoman empire in the 16th century at the height of the slave trade. Total population of the Ottoman Empire was some 12 million in 1600s.

Most of these slaves did not die in one year they had probably average life time as slave at least 5 years. If we calculate further we can divide the number of slaves 60,000 by 5 years it becomes 12,000 in one year Ottoman Empire needed slaves.But these slaves came from very different regions, border regions in Central Europe, by Barbary corsairs in the Mediterranean Sea and from the Caucasus and areas north of the Black Sea. Not all of those slaves from Crimea imported to Ottoman empire were Russians, a great part of them were Caucasian people, like the Circassians.

There are limited documents on the slave imports to the Ottoman Empire I will list here some.DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• 17,502 slaves in 1578 exported through Kaffa, according to Ottoman tax documents, for every slave there was 255 akche tax. Total tax income was some 4,5 million akche source
• 313 slaves imported into Karadeniz Ereğli in 8 months between June 1521 and January 1522.
• 1,357 slaves in one year into Amasra, monthly average 113.
• 40 slaves into Amasra between 1606-1607
• Azov in 1529 had yearly customs revenue of some 2,8 million akche, 24% (650,000) from slave tax. 650,000/255= 2,549 slaves?
• In 3 years total of 5,254 slaves in Azov according to document of 1554, yearly 1,751 slaves. Total slave tax revenue was 1,340,000 akce, tax was 255.
• 3,137 slaves imported to Istanbul in 1 year, between 1606-1607. Of those 1,037 came from Yevpatoria, 1,012 from Kaffa, 537 from ports in Abkhazia.

The numbers above are based on this source DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If the professors do not agree, I don't think we can solve this on the wikipedia. I wish there were a good way to qualify the numbers in this article, but we don't seem to even have estimates of the inaccuracy of the estimates. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

More information of slaves to the Ottoman empire based on Ottoman tax records. Kaffa was probably the biggest slave trading center. The numbers varied yearly. Total slaves were 57,388 between 1520-1581 but there is not information for every year. There is only information for 13 years, 57,388/13 = 4,414 slaves yearly. The documents show that there was a peak during 1577-1580 (maybe there was a war?) all the other years number was lower. In those three years 37,286 slaves were exported (yearly average 12,429), in the remaining 10 years 20,102 slaves were exported (yearly average 2,010).

• (yearly 850) total of 2,549 slaves exported through Kaffa during 3 years 1520s
• (yearly 1031) total of 3,092 slaves exported through Kaffa during 3 years 1542s
• (yearly 4,117) total of 12,352 slaves exported through Kaffa during 3 years 1554s
• 8,089 slaves exported through Kaffa during 1577-78
• 17,502 slaves exported through Kaffa during 1578-79
• 11,695 slaves exported through Kaffa during 1579-80
• 2,108 slaves exported through Kaffa during 1570-81

Source DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In Russia it was legal for Christian slaves to be sold to Muslims

Not all of the slaves were taken in raids. Russia permitted Russian and European Christian slaves to be sold in its own cities to Muslims.

Page 16

http://www.academia.edu/2971600/Slave_Trade_in_the_Early_Modern_Crimea_From_the_Perspective_of_Christian_Muslim_and_Jewish_Sources

Rajmaan (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the article?

It is not clear the purpose of the article. Crimean-Nogai raids??? Into East Slavic lands??? In which exactly East Slavic lands. There is no such a political polity neither today or in the history. Why does the article talk about Crimean-Nogai raids and does not cover Muscovite, Polish, Ottoman raids or Golden Horde raids? The whole article is dubious? Were those raids of Crimean-Nogai conducted exclusively for the purpose of slave trade or is it an opinion of historians? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The article should be renamed into something like "Struggle of Muscovy and Russian Empire against the Crimean Tatars". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crimean–Nogai raids into East Slavic lands. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605131551/http://www.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~areastd/mediterranean/mw/pdf/18/10.pdf to http://www2.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~areastd/mediterranean/mw/pdf/18/10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605131551/http://www.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~areastd/mediterranean/mw/pdf/18/10.pdf to http://www2.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~areastd/mediterranean/mw/pdf/18/10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605131551/http://www.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~areastd/mediterranean/mw/pdf/18/10.pdf to http://www2.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~areastd/mediterranean/mw/pdf/18/10.pdf

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) 12:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Srnec's alternative proposal. It seems to satisfy all the questions and objections raised (other than the argument against the nominator based solely on the fact they do not have a user page, which isn't valid objection): firstly, the nominator argues Tatar is simpler and is closer to the source material and secondly also offers precision to distinguish it from other historical events. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Crimean–Nogai raids into East Slavic lands → Tatar slave raids – per WP:PRECISION Using the word Tatar is simpler and indicates the exact same source, slave raids indicates their purpose and the subject of those raids in a simpler fashion. Periander6 (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:The proposer has no talk page. The Russian Wiki, from which the article was translated, uses "Crimean-Nogai raids on Rus' ". Before it was adopted by the Crimean and Kazan Tatars, 'Tatar' was a vague and hostile term for the steppe peoples. Today historians normally use it when describing how the Tatars appeared to their opponents, as in this article. The article is blunt enough without carrying bluntness into the title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Trovato (talk • contribs)

@Benjamin Trovato: A nominator having no talk page is not a reason Oppose a change. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Proposed title is too broad. Tatars have been around since the 8th century and their name has been used for many peoples besides the Crimean and Nogai Tatars. Suggest Crimean–Nogai raids into Rus' for a shorter title, or even Tatar slave raids in East Slavic lands. —Srnec (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

My main issue with the title of this page is that its specificity and unwieldiness will make it hard for people looking for information on the subject to find this article. Lots of alternatives would be better. Also I have a talk page, isn't it showing up? Periander6 (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah so. You have a talk page but no user page. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deletion discussion

01may19 deletion proposal: Where is the deletion discussion page? I can't find it. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion proposal seems to have been removed. This section of the talk page can be deleted. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Why this article?

What is the main purpose of this article translated from RUwiki? - Devlet Geray (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I originally translated this from the Russian Wiki because I thought it was valuable and there was nothing better in English. The Crimean-Nogai raids were important because they controlled the southward Expansion of Russia 1500–1800. This massive population growth was what made Russia a major power.

To deal with the apparent objections: 1) I have read many books on Central Asia and have found that the Russian Wiki often has more detailed information than anything in English. It has Russian-language sources that are not available outside of large libraries. 2) The original article has no footnotes, but I have not yet found anything that was incorrect. Review of View History shows few examples of editors correcting anything in the raid-list. 3) As noted, numbers are clearly guesses from the chronicles, but we have nothing better and a wise reader should be able to figure this out. 4) It is clearly POV, but the Russian folk memory of these raids has a major impact on their current treatment of the Crimean Tatars. 5) The long year-by-year list of raids is unorthodox, but is the best way to show how frequent and massive these things were. It is also a useful reference.

In short, the Crimean raids were a major influence on European history. With the partial exception of Brian Davies, there is no good account in English. The raid list is valuable and should be made available to those who read English.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

1.Just because Russian Wikipedia is more lenient about allowing unsourced content doesn't mean English Wikipedia should be. 2. The burden of proof to prove the accuracy and verafiability of content is on the editor who adds it - if it cannot be proven to be accurate, it should be removed. 3.Wikipedia is for providing people with facts, not presenting people with guestimates and hoping that they figure out that guestimates are guestimates. 4. Why the disproportionate emphasis on Tatar raids (giving them an entire article instead of a sub-section of an article)? Note that there is not comparable article like "Bukharan raids on South Slavic Lands" (P.S., the slave markets in Bukhara existed alltheway into in the 1910's - yet strangely Russians never pull the "slave raids" card when discussing Central Asian politics. So clearly the Moscow's current treatment of Crimean Tatars has nothing to do with these raids - as seen by the fact that Bukhara was never de-Uzbekified despite the Emirate of Bukhara launching raids lasting until the 20th century.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

See how titling stuff "(Direction) Slavic Lands" really confuses people?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320, what Bukharan raids on South Slavic lands are you talking about? Your comment about "Russians [pulling] the 'slave raids' card" and "Moscow's current treatment" suggests that this isn't really about the accuracy of the article, is it? Indeed, where on Earth does this come from? "So clearly the Moscow's current treatment of Crimean Tatars has nothing to do with these raids"? Who is saying that it does? The article does not mention or allude to current Russian politics. If you wish to write an article on Central Asian slave raiding, be my guest. Srnec (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Read this 2. Um, yeah, read my previous statements about concerns regarding the accuracy of some of the sources in the article. 3. As claimed by Trojato "It is clearly POV, but the Russian folk memory of these raids has a major impact on their current treatment of the Crimean Tatars" - so I rightly pointed out that Russias much-better treatment of Khivans and Bukharans (who were engaged in the same practices, but stopped much later) shows that slavery is not the reason Russias treatment of the Crimean Tatars.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You said "South Slavic". I was looking for a Bukharan raid on the Balkans! I am aware of the Bukharan slave raiding, see Slavery and Empire in Central Asia (CUP, 2018). Srnec (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A few Russians were sold as far a Bukhara, but a Bukharan raid on Russia would have been militarily unfeasible and never happened. As noted in 'Read this', mose Khivan slaves were Persian. Some Russians were taken during the Bekovich-Cherkassky raid and some from around Orenburg, but the matter only became important when Russians began fishing in the Caspian. See Richmond Shakespear and related articles. 2. The fact that something is used as a justification does not make it untrue. 3. To Srnec: Thank you for Slavery and Empire. I just bought it. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

@PlanespotterA320 and Devlet Geray: Since this seems to be a sensitive issue for both of you, please discuss any edits you wish to make here and come to some sort of consensus. I have no stake in this article, but as you can see above it has gone through an RM discussion once already and you seem to be trying to change the focus of the article, which is why I reverted to the previous version. Please both try to stop reverting each other (and me!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: The edits I made today are by definition, not editwaring. And Wikipedia has clear policies about providing sources for claims - and that Wikipedia is not a citation, and that uncited content may be removed. Devlet Geray and do not consider ourselves to be in an editwar. Please familiarize yourself with the rules about the Template:Translated page, and WP:CIRCULAR--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If you're editing back and forth like that, it's by definition an editwar, whether you "consider" it to be one or not. I suggest you stop reverting each other and other editors and discuss the problems that you two have.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320: Please try to avoid patronising experienced editors. I am aware of what these say. I also asked you to stop trying to alter the article without discussion and reverting other people's edits, a request which you were apparently unwilling to accede to. That is an edit war. What you are doing achieves nothing except conflict. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Problems with the article

1. Title - Not everyone involved in the raids and slave trade was Tatar. There were also Turks, Greeks, Jews, and Armenians among others involved. Also, "East Slavic lands" is a vague and inaccurate label too - the was never a political entity or even a generally recognized term by the name of "East Slavic Lands" and the definition of what is "east slavic land" will vary by how nationalist the person you ask is.

2. Sources - the paper by Eizo Matsuki has some VERY questionable footnotes, including S.K. Bogoiavlenskii, Prikaznye sud’i XVII v., Moscow-Leningrad from 1946 and A. A. Novosel’skii, Bor’ba moskovskogo gosudarstva s Tatarami v pervoi polovine XVII veka. Moscow-Leningrad, 1948 - published less than 5 years after the deportation of the Crimean tatars, when Soviet propaganda offices were tasked with publishing materials that depicting Crimean Tatars in as negative light as possible. It is well known that Soviet anti-tatar propaganda contained major errors, like the magazines that falsely labeled Hero of the Soviet Union Uzeir Abduramanov as and Azeri, or newspapers that labeled Amet-khan Sultan as a pure Lak. It is best that anything that cites 1940's Soviet sources about Crimean Tatars be taken with a grain of salt and not be treated as scholarly work.

3. Basic english conventions and translation mistakes are present. Wikipedia standards are not held.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Title: See the RM above. If you want to change the title then try another RM, but don't change it away from a title agreed by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Fucking up the first paragraph

Maybe then do not make huge wall of text edits.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing problematic material piecemeal is easy, reverting blanket removals piece-by-piece is hard. Those who think the article should be pared down by 200,000 bytes should do others the favour of doing the paring in parts. No doubt, there's lots that could be removed without controversy. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but there was mass deletion then mass removal without any attempt at discussion. I do not care who started it. Material has been objected to on the gourd as that it was using a wiki as a source. This is valid, and it was down to those who wanted inclusion to demonstrate it is not based solely (or even mostly) on another wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Content translated from another Wikipedia must still have a citation to a reliable source. If no reliable source for such claims are provided, the content may be removed. Also, it is worth mentioning that the translation was quite poor English.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody involved does want inclusion of this material. But what is plainly not acceptable is continuing mass deletion and changes without discussion by editors who seem unwilling to discuss anything in its proper place, i.e. here. It is clear that edits to this article have been controversial. So, obviously, it is best to discuss them before continuing to edit. Doing anything else is disruptive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And so is reinstatement of unsourced material after it has been objected to, no one has anything to shout about here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Objected to by an editor indulging in edit warring after being asked to discuss changes here first and refusing to do so! The best option there is always to revert all changes made by such editors until they can be bothered to engage in discussion. I have no objection to that content being removed, but only by a neutral party who can be bothered to engage with others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant, if it was objected to then a case should really have been made for inclusion (and I still have not seen one being made really). What RS supported the removed content?Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No, not irrelevant. Edit warring and refusal to discuss controversial actions needs to be stamped on immediately. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Both sides edit warred, and restoring unsourced and controversial claims should also be stamped out. If you had sources add them, if not do not reinstate.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous answer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

lede

IS the lede biased?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Devlet Geray:, please discourse your reasons for thinking it's biased here before further reversions.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Ermenrich: I think Planspotter's explanation for why the article is biased is completely enough, isn't it? - Devlet Geray (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That is not doing your cause any good, why was the lede biased?Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Raid list: remove/restore

The reasons for removing the raid list seem to be that it is copied from the Russian Wikipedia and the Russian wiki does not have a proper list of sources or footnotes. The reasons for restoring are that it has been there for oven four years and there have been very few corrections. This implies that there are few mistakes. This being Wikipedia, anyone with a good source can correct a problem or add a footnote. The raid list is a valuable reference and is not available anywhere else. Since it is harmless, removing it would be a pure loss without any compensating gain.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin Trovato, hi, that article on Russian wiki is under Воевода's, who is banned from EnWiki for racism, control. That's why it cannot be changed (believe me, I've tried) - Devlet Geray (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

View history on RU: shows that although voyvoda contributed, the main raid-list was made by Ingvar78 in 2012.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

moreover, writing the history of Crimean Tatars basing on the works of the Academy of Science of the USSR (and related Matsuki etc.) is the same as writing the history of Jews basing on academical works of The Third Reich (Nazi Germany) - Devlet Geray (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

so don't return stupid propaganda without good sources (good are those which are not based on the works of Academy of Science of the USSR, are not written by Russian or Soviet historians) - Devlet Geray (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Benjamin Trovato: You are required to provide reliable sources for your claims, no matter how long they have been on the page or regardless of if they are on another wiki or not. Unsourced material can be removed. You cannot demand that unsourced (and questionable) content be kept just because it was on the page for a certain amount of time. Simply complaining about content loss is no excuse to put unsourced content on the page. If you have no sources to prove that it is true, we cannot treat it as truth and it must be removed. This is to prevent hoaxes and Citogenesis. Furthermore, I have no reason to beleive that the list is indeed accurate. For all we know, it could be that a bunch of kremlinminions could have compiled the list on ruwiki, edited it, and then it got translated. It is never harmless to post large amounts of unverifiable, uncited, and questionable material on a politically sensitive topic. I hope to see your behavior change it the future. By the way, it is strongly discouraged to translated content generated by a user who was blocked from enwiki for being extremely biased not meeting basic content requirements.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Benjamin Trovato: By the way, adding 50,000 bytes of unsourced content IS NOT a minor edit, and it is a blatant abuse of the "minor edit" button to call it that. I have been very kind and not brought up your behavior with an administrator, but if you continue messing around here I promise the admins will be notified.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the minor. I updated in stages and marked only the first as major. I was trying to avoid clutter in the View History, but it did not work well. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dusti: hi, see the reasons for deletion above. I can also write 300 000 bytes of sth biased and not sourced and then return it, saying that 300 000 bytes are too much to be deleted!! - Devlet Geray (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Devlet Geray: Include a mention of per talkpage discussion then, for those of us who simply have this on our talk page due to the Edit Warring. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The above creates the suspicion that you are using citation requests to suppress something that you do not want people to see. The suspicion is probably wrong but its possibility weakens your case. Instead of doubts, I would like to see a published work that shows that the raid list is wrong. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Benjamin Trovato: The burden of proof is on YOU. YOU must prove that the content you add is correct. Otherwise anybody could write literally anything on wikipedia, and then say "hey, look I haven't found a since source that says that there is no invisible unicorn population in Antarctica" or some other crap they make up. Editors have to prove that what they add is VERIFIABLE, and your failure to provide sources and insistence on keeping the list leads me to beleive that you are unable to verify anything you wrote with a reliable source - ie, that you wrote unacceptable content. Not to mention that it was one of the worst translations from Russian I've ever seen on enwiki (with hilariously poor grammar and the most basic formatting mistakes), and I've seen some very shitty articles.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Consider what a citation request means in this case. We could contact Ingvar78 and see if he could redo his work adding more footnotes, or we could find the Russian sources in a large library and build a better set of citations, or we could read thousands of pages of Russian looking for corrections, additions and sources. Requesting citations only takes a minute. One could justify deleting almost anything where ever providing citations demands an inordinate amount of research. I hope you were not aware of this when you requested citations.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I AM aware that you will have to find book. The Russian article is poorly cited hence the accuracy is questionable. If you cannot satisty the citation request (which is obligatory by Wikipedia starndards), then the content should not be there at all. Difficulty in attaining books in no excuse to insert large amounts on uncited content. The rules are rules, and paragraphs that don't have citations can be removed, regardless of the emotional attachment the writer has. You have not cited a single policy of English Wikipedia as justification for keeping the content, and having your uncited content goes against the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:UNSOURCED before writing anything else here. If you continue to insist on having unsourced content, admins will take appropriate action.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"Can be removed" refers to permission from the authorities. "Should be removed" requires evidence. You have used an appeal to authority to destroy valuable information. Goodbye. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

If you cannot prove the accuracy of the information, don't even dare to call it "valuable". Writing uncited dribble wherever you please is not acceptable. You must provide evidence supporting the accuracy of your text, and if you do not, it CAN AND SHOULD be removed.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

page moves

Stop, now for gods sake.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Page moves should not be made without discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Moved back. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Name change to "Crimean Slave trade"?

Perhaps the article should change name to Crimean slave trade? It would be in line with the similar article Barbary slave trade: the tatar slave raids by land is after all similar to the Barbary pirates slave trade on sea.--92.35.237.251 (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, makes much more sense.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The article contains little about the trade per se and is mostly about raids. I would support a move only if information on slave markets and final destinations and such were added. Srnec (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Once/If/When the article is moved I will add such information.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

For purposes of historical accuracy and neutrality, I agree with the decision of titling it Crimean-Nogai raids in Eastern and Central Europe (or Crimean-Nogai raids in Eastern Europe depending on your definition of Eastern and Central Europe). Not all beligerents in the confict were tatar and slavic, that's for sure! We don't call our article on WWII "Soviet-German war" or something else highly innaccurate.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

And page moves should not be made with out agreement, it does not matter if you think it should. Why (for example) has Tartar been removed from the page title?.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Because the previous page title was Crimean-Nogai raids in East slavic lands and 2. Because of the confusion and vauge definition of the word "Tatar" 3. The confusion and and vaugeness of the term "East slavic lands" 4. Because many users on this talkpage and page history support changing it, as seen above (ex, Devlet Geray, 3family6. 5. Because it's more historically accurate, specific, and understandable to the "average Joe"--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

They do, where, diffs please because I cannot even find where (for example) 3family6 has even commented here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

3family6 didn't comment here, he just moved the page rather recently. It got moved back without discussion, but I though his/her title was much better so I changed it back.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Now lets actually discus it. Make a case for the page move.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. This page was moved after an RM. If you want to get it moved again, then please open another RM. This is clearly highly controversial and that's what RMs are for. I'm not bothered what the title is as long as it's NPOV, but it needs to have some sort of consensus after a formal process. @PlanespotterA320 and 3family6: Please stop trying to circumvent this and just have a formal RM discussion. I honestly can't see why you're making controversial moves instead of just opening one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Frankly neither do I, but I do not want to see a repeat of the edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

IDK what an RM is or how to start one, but it seems that the reverts are being argued for on technocalities rather than actual facts and without regard of the input of many users or the issues inherent with the current title. Go start one yourself and try to make a half-decent case for keeping the title.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The current title is inaccurate (includes raids on Circassians and other people from the Caucasus region as well as on Moldavia (which includes Romanians) and Hungary (which includes Hungarians and Germans); and there wasn't really an "East Slavic" land, just land where East Slavs as well as many other ethnicities (including Tatars) lived; plus, Cossacks have Tatar ancestry, too, and they were raided) and possibly in violation of WP:NPOV. The article has significant issues, too, but this one is a quick and easy fix. I'm not opposed to this being reworked into an article about the Crimean slave trade.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, "Tatar" isn't well defined, and it was two specific political entities, not Tatars in general, who were conducting the raids.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, after looking at the article on East Slavs, I'm seeing that Lithuania isn't even East Slavic but Baltic! How is this article title a good one? Fundamentally inaccurate, and emphasizes Russia and Poland, when Lithuania was a major player.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, apologies for stirring up a problem, I didn't know about the move dispute when I made the move and I'd been cleaning up articles that reflected a Russian nationalist perspective.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe". There was consensus that the article should be moved, and if a better title is agreed upon in the future, the article can be moved again. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Tatar slave raids in East Slavic lands → Crimean-Nogai raids in Eastern and Central Europe – The current title is inaccurate. "Tatar" isn't well defined, and it was two specific political entities, not Tatars in general, who were conducting the raids. Lithuania also isn't even East Slavic but Baltic. This emphasizes Russia and Poland, when Lithuania was a major player. The raids were conducted on Circassians and other people from the Caucasus region as well as on Moldavia (which includes Romanians) and Hungary (which includes Hungarians and Germans). There wasn't really an "East Slavic" land, just land where East Slavs as well as many other ethnicities (including Tatars) lived, plus Cossacks have Tatar ancestry, too, possibly (although they are primarily of East Slavic origin). Yes, the proposed title does ignore the Caucasus, but I think you could reasonably argue that this region can fall under Eastern Europe for sake of brevity in the title. I'm not opposed to this being reworked into an article about the Crimean slave trade and the content reworked accordingly. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You make a perfect argument for moving the page title. One thing though - I would just change it to Crimean-Nogai raids in Eastern Europe instead of Eastern and Central Europe, because the areas listed are rarely considered to be Central Europe, normally all just considered to be Eastern Europe.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hungary and Poland? Even simpler and more accurate would be Crimean-Nogai slave raids. I'm supporting this as an alternative.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal but would support Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe (note en dash, addition of "slave" and removal of pedantic "and Central"). I also want to point out that Lithuania was largely an "East Slavic land" at the time and as this is a descriptive title we are free to define its scope as we see fit (as long as there are RS to support the coverage). Srnec (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Right now the only mention of "East Slavic" is in the article title - content supporting the title needs to be provided if it is to be kept. Even then, I'm not seeing the support for that: East Slavic is an ethno-linguistic group, and not all people subject to the raids were Eastern Slavic. Lithuanians also resided in the territories of the Grand Duchy and intermarried with East Slavs. And this still doesn't account for Hungary, Moldavia, and Circassia, none of which are Slavic at all.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• support proposal. The raids were not only to obtain slaves, but also to capture food, livestock, to press on states, to weaken the economy of a hostile state, to collect tribute, and so on. --Devlet Geray (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Modify: Suggest drop "Central'. Central Europe often includes Germany, Hungary and so on. Only a few raids crossed the current Polish border. Dropping 'slave' would be more neutral. Therefore 'Crimean-Nogai raids on Eastern Europe'.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a note: At least one raid was in Hungary, too. I agree that these are in such a minority that the "Central" can be dropped and the title still be accurate.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• IMHO Crimean-Nogai raids in Eastern Europe is best title, but it certainly appears that the current title Tatar slave raids in East Slavic lands is absolutely unacceptable and should be changed ASAP. We can argue over the nitty gritty details like if it should be Crimean-Nogai raids in Eastern and Central Europe, Crimean-Nogai raids in Central and Eastern Europe", Crimean-Nogai raids in Eastern Europe or even just Crimean-Nogai raids in Europe later. But I see absolutely no justification for the use of the current title, or for that matter, any title that contains the words "East Slavic lands" (since we know that's inaccurate given that Baltic, Hungarian, and Caucasian areas involved aren't slavic) and nor should "Tatar slave raids" be used (also innaccurate and vague, since it was mostly but not entirely Crimean Nogays, but the title could lead an uniformed person into thinking Kazan Tatars or some other Tatars had something to do with it). It's time to stop delaying this fix for burecratic reasons and correct the title on historical accuracy grounds instead of insisting on a highly misleading title for burecratic reasons.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I think that Crimean-Nogai raids and CAMPAIGNS would be the most accurate title for the article, there is no need to add a location or sth --Devlet Geray (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)--Devlet Geray (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• It's been over 7 days. We all agreed that any form of Crimean-Nogai raids in Eastern Europe was better than the previous one given the problems with it. We can debate about minor tweaks to it, but I think that this one should be a solution to the problem given the unanimous opposition to the old innapropriate title in favor of a title resembling this one.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus for Crimean–Nogai raids in Eastern Europe. But only an uninvolved editor should close the RM and move the page. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Srnec: It's been over a week and consensus is here. How do we get an uninvolved editor to come an move it? Right now I feel like the reversions to the old title are just burecratic formalities that go against widespread consesnus and established fact.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support of Srnec's alternate proposal, Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe. The fact that these raids were primarily about getting slaves is an important aspect that shouldn't be removed (e.g. slave raiding vs. raids as part of a war or for stealing treasure or the like). I agree that "Eastern or Central" reads oddly and isn't needed. I don't see an issue with "Tatar" but clearly others do, so if the more precise term of Crimean–Nogai helps assuage those concerns, sure, use that. SnowFire (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

SnowFire The issue with using the term "Tatar" is that many Tatars, for instance, the Volga Tatars, were not conducting the slave raids. It was specifically the Crimean Khanate and Nogai Horde engaged in this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: I understand the issue, I just don't believe it's a big deal. (The American Indian Wars were not fought against every single Indian tribe, just some of them. In the same way, "Tatar slave raids" shouldn't necessarily imply that every Tatar group participated. Still. Sensitive subject, so I'm not complaining too much about an extra-precise name.) SnowFire (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of Tartar raids since 1480

• See this edit :: best discuss whether or not to keep this list. Much work seems to have been done on it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

There's already been a lot of discussion about it. And the end result was to not keep it because somebody (not naming names) was unwilling to provide in-line paragraph citations. Stop trying to wake up a dead horse.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

If the content can be supported with inline citations, it can be restored.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

REAL inline sfn citations, not 10 books inside a single ref template just to make fact-checking mission impossible. AND it MUST be copyedited because calling that list english is generous. I've seen a lot of google-translate gobly-gook, and that list was by far the worst nightmare to read.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't restore the raid list without serious edits

The accuracy of the claims on Russian Wikipedia are questionable to say the least. Lots of stuff on this subject was cooked up in the 1940's, plagerized from questionable Soviet sources, and written up by "patriotic education" commissars instead of actual academics. So lots of bullshit made its way into this kind of topic. Some of the major editors of the Russian version of this page are banned from English Wikipedia for very unethical behavior. To ensure each claim is supported by a referece, each paragraph should have at least one referece. If you are citing, books, use the sfn template, don't put a dozen books in a ref template inline citation and call it a day when you know that only of the the books has in info. Don't be sloppy. The entire read list seems to be google-translated as well, I was shocked at the abysmal quality of the language and frequent patent nonsense. Wikipedia is not for patent nonsense, unsupported claims, questionable information, and barfing up google translated crap from Russian Wikipedia. Don't restore it without completely fixing it. IMHO the information in the list is questionable itself, Russian Wikipedia ought to be taken with a grain of salt on these matters. In my experience the vetniks responsible for creating the Russian version of the page, and some of the sources they used, about as trustworthy as flint tap water and elevator rides with ray rice.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Seriously. A bunch of books listed at the bottom of the page is not sufficient. Use IN-LINE citations to support EACH paragraph. And there shouldn't be so many question marks in your text. And keep it proper! Don't write stuff like "we could only find" and "from Russian Wikipedia". This isn't a 2nd grade powerpoint. Don't publish your incredibly sloppy rough draft in an article. A preschooler could write a better list than that.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Засечная черта.Южный рубеж.2010г.х.,м.90х180.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Russian propaganda

The statements about the "cruelty" of the Crimean Tatars were greatly exaggerated by the Russian tsarist racist regime in order to justify its imperial ambitions on the Crimean peninsula and to expose the Crimean Tatars as subhumans. This is the same technique used by modern Putin propaganda. I don't want Wikipedia to refer to outdated racist myths.--Temir Oguz (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Temir Oguz, yes, what you've wrote is true. So you can feel free to edit this article. --Devlet Geray (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Devlet Geray, this article needs to be deleted and totally rewritten. It is now written based on propaganda that existed in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union totally manipulating with the issue. While slave trade existed and Tatars did participate in it, Muscovites played of no less significance in it as well. One of the biggest slave centers was the old Moscow city where the former Great Horde Begs that constituted the Muscovite elite then were selling their human assets. It particularly flourished during the Livonian War. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Those yamshchiks want everyone to believe that Moscow was a center of Christian Orthodoxy with their "Third Rome" BS. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• The article is written to justify the Russian aggression, portraying them as righteous ones who fight against the Great Evil. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

dates

The dates 1441-1774 in the infobox are not supported by the article. The dates 1468-1769 that I proposed were reverted b/c the article only says these were the first and last major raids. But where is the evidence for raids as early as 1441 or after 1769? Not in the article. 216.252.210.88 (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Well we have a source for both 1441 and 1774 (it's in the lede).Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No. "after ... 1441" ≠ 1441 and that source gives no page number, so I'm sceptical it actually says that the raids continued down to 1774. But if you can provide a page number... 216.252.210.88 (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Valid objection, its is not properly cited so leads to a suspicion of wp:or. So lets have the quotes that support the dates 1468-1769?Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest that both dates be marked as circa. 1441 is one of the suggested dates for the foundation of the khanate. 1774 is when Crimea became a Russian vassal. 1769 is one of the last raids recorded (see article history as of 10nov 2019). There were Mongol/Golden Horde raids long before the khanate was established. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • So, that is wp:or it assumes something happened because something else did. If there was a raid after 1769 a source would say it, so present the source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)